Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, January 8th, 1815 Berlin time (UTC+1)

it’s not allowed that a member of a body with a CoI on a topic participate in a discussion / decision on this topic. If she/he is not able to refrain from participating the decision is void and she/he has to be excluded / expulsed from the body in the end, because she/he showed that she/he is not able to separate between the TDF’s matter and her/his own matter.

We’re not talking about the discussion overall; certainly, the positions of all parties should be heard on such matters - including all BoD members and perhaps other trustees, AB members etc. I hope it was heard, since I’ve not seen these statements of position.

The point is that the final discussion, in which the decision is taken, should be held by the non-conflicated board members, only. When a small number of members make the decision, in the presence of the most dominant board member - the chairperson - who himself has a CoI’ed (more strongly than the member under discussion (not as strong as yours, @cornouws , but stronger than @PaoloVecchi 's) that’s a problem.

Hi Eyal,

just a few clarifications:

There was no need to formally find for a CoI for me, since I’ve frequently declared it (and abstained).

You should not necessarily assume so (just because Paolo claims that to be the case). Paolo is always quick to condemn others, but as we see here, extremely unwilling to admit to own conflicts. He has participated in votes and discussions (and even led the charge, that ultimately ended in Collabora’s departure) even before this board term. That was during a period where his websites indeed still mentioned LibreOffice Online.

Finally (without quote) - I find your comment referring to another director’s personal situation inappropriate, and ad-hominem. You might want to edit your post there. That there was only two directors left to vote, on a case where there was perceived CoI left and right, is not their fault.

Best, Thorsten

There was no need to formally find for a CoI for me, since I’ve frequently declared it (and abstained).

I don’t see why, when there’s a formal framework for determining CoI, some members would be exempt from it because of their voluntary actions. Regardless - you did not refrain from participating in sessions in which relevant matters were being decided, like Paolo’s CoI. So, it seems like there had been a need to declare this CoI.

You should not necessarily assume so

You’re the outgoing chairperson, the person talking about the matter, and the ranking BoD member in the session taking the decision; and you also did not mention anybody else involved who took this initiative. So, it’s not an assumption as far as the public record is concerned. I would be hard-pressed to believe Laszlo or Ayhan initiated this - but they are of course free to surprise me.

I find your comment referring to another director’s personal situation inappropriate, and ad-hominem

  1. It is not his personal situation, it is his public situation. Ayhan is a public servant who - as far as I can tell - was negligent in discharging his duties, and did not even bother to inform the trustees of what’s going on, nor to resign from the BoD.
  2. Of course it’s an ad-hominen comment: It’s criticizing the conduct of a hominem, namely Ayhan.

That is your opinion (we had that discussion).

Hi @EyalRozenberg,

It could be conceivable and I would have no issues in stating it if it were the case as I did the 4th of August 2020 starting an email in the director list with:
“Disclaimer: I’m interested on the development of the issue as I’m setting up a hosting environment where I intend to offer LibreOffice On-Line to individuals, schools and non for profit on a free or cost sharing basis.”

Together with others and, potentially, TDF itself we were trying to setup services to help mitigating the issues of the lock down but as then the discussion went nowhere I gave up and did offer free/cost sharing based services to schools and non for profit organisations without TDF and LibreOffice OnLine.

If I really wanted to use LibreOffice OnLine and sell it as a service under my brand then I could have done it since then as well as rebranding the current fork of LibreOffice OnLine but I never did it. As a member of the board of trustees and director I’m very sad that LibreOffice OnLine has been forked but as owner of my company it hasn’t affected my business at all. If TDF will manage to develop a new LibreOffice OnLine it would be great and I would surely promote it as a member of the board of trustees/directors but it still won’t affect positively or negatively my business.

More here: Declaration of Conflict of Interest - Paolo Vecchi - #10 by PaoloVecchi

That’s obvious to anyone, even to Thorsten and Cor as every so often they declare their CoI on certain items, but in the meantime they influenced the majority of the board which is generally/mostly unprepared on the matters being discussed or voted.

As stated also for the CoC case (which was highly problematic, was even supported by false statements from the co-complainant and the evidence was manufactured to support the desired outcome) I would have no issues at all in having the CoI determination to be evaluated in an objective and impartial way, even in public as I requested but my request was denied.
Once again there were no comments from other directors on the matter apart from Emiliano’s which you will find as exhibit C:

The information I have available seem to show that only Thorsten and Cor dealt with the case and only Emiliano tried to get them to interact with it in an objective and impartial way but he was ignored once again.

If disclosure happened timely and with accurate descriptions then it would have been even easier for members of the board of trustees to understand that quite a few things weren’t aligned with the ethical standards that are expected to be held by members of the board of directors. Then by using “HR” or “legal matters” even when not disclosing sensitive or privileged information gave Thorsten and Cor a “plausible” excuse to delete many posts and to put board discuss in moderation to limit transparency related to their own actions.

I’m very interested in knowing more about the accusations moved towards me even in public.

Maybe even members of staff could tell us if they perceived that I tried to direct or oversee TDF staff for my personal benefit. The records that current and former directors have indicate a very different story where Thorsten, Cor and former directors would need to answer for actions that are not public.

In a little more than a month a new board will have to review what happened during this term and fix quite a few things in a transparent way so I expect that we’ll finally clarify various situations and will implement rules and checks to avoid a repeat of what happened during this term.



I’m sorry, this is not only my opinion, but a common understanding, backed by references.

But if you prefer to rephrase it in a different way with the same result:

it is inappropriate that a member of a body with a CoI on a topic participate in a discussion / decision on this topic. If she/he is not able to refrain from participating the decision is void and she/he has to be excluded / expulsed from the body in the end, because she/he showed that she/he is not able to separate between the TDF’s matter and her/his own matter.

Such a behavior is also unethical and in the current case in bad faith too. And an unethical behavior is incompatible with the mindset of an organization which is based on ethical values, like a charity (TDF is a charity).


your opinion is also backed by several professional statements that the board has received over time.

Unfortunately those statements have been ignored, they created many frictions and issues that this board has been incapable of tackling in a suitable manner during this term.

Let’s say that there are ongoing formal enquiries related to those directors and their behaviours that the new board will need to assist with.



What can I expect from the kind of person who writes this sentence? No less than his resignation.

Hi @mariosv

if you could be a bit more patient in about a month I won’t need to endure this board and I’m confident I won’t need to write sentences like those as situations like those described in that sentence as they won’t be allowed to happen anymore.



Hi Andreas,

I 'd appreciate if you show us the law that commands what you’re describing.

Hi Eyal,

Interpreting this as a ‘this is sub optimal situation’ I can fully agree with you, although it is impossible to look at that isolated from the other aspects that makes the situation sub optimal.
On the personal level, IMO our Statues ("… to treat other … open-mindedness, friendliness, understanding and goodwill. ") and our Code of Conduct (e.g. “showing empathy towards other community members”) tell that your statement is not as it should be since, as you write, you have ~no clue. Do you understand what I mean?

Hi all,

Such a statement, from someone who is selling alternatives to Microsoft 365 to date, is really puzzling to me.
The rest of that comment… Look at these examples of unacceptable behavior: “saying insulting/derogatory comments and making personal attacks”, “repeatedly instigating conflict and baiting people into arguments”…

Hi Eya;l,

Because this formal framework describes quite precisely, when a board should take action. I refer you to section 5.4. There is no exemption, or double-standard here. Let’s move on.

Regarding the ad hominem - you;re attacking a person, in an attempt to delegitimize a decision you seem to disagree with. Nothing of what you accuse Ayhan of, has any direct bearing on the discussion at hand. Both form and content are simply inappropriate IMO, even more so in public.

Best, Thorsten

It is not right to tell others what you should have done, because it was you who did not have the patience to wait a month to spare yourself such an insulting expression.
Truly unpleasant, having to put up with a person like you in the project.

Miguel Ángel.

Hi @cornouws,

not sure why you are asking @andreasma.

The board received many emails over the years containing professional statements confirming what behaviour conflicted members of the board should keep together with references of specific sections of the German Civil Code among other things.

The 13/12/2023 I once again reminded you of the specific email we received the 19/05/2022 which should have made things clear once and for all but you might have overlooked it. Please do review that email and the others confirming that conflicted members of the board should refrain from influencing the discussion and other board members.

For you reference we had similar discussions also here:

and here:

I guess it’s a bit late to discuss once again the matter for this board but I’m sure the new board will find all the professional statements we received very useful for clarifying the rules and avoid the misunderstandings that led to many frictions and discussions.



Since he claims something that, according to two legal statements, has no legal ground.

Hi Cor,

the board received professional statements confirming that conflicted members of the board should have refrained from influencing discussions and other directors.

Which claims made by @andreasma are specifically mentioned by the two legal statements you are referring to?




The board has in no advice given the reason that, according to (let me call it) the leading statement of the ones you refer to, could be a ground to defer from what the law demands.
This has been explained in the board, more than once. The fact that you ignore that, doesn’t make your position a valid one.

Please follow the thread backwards. Thanks.


Apart from being fed up by these discussions, which are going in circles since forever, I would like to see the Articles of the German Civil Code which prevents people whose Conflict of Interest is known/declared to participate in discussions. I am not a lawyer, but I know lawyers and I have asked their opinion on this specific topic, and in the Italian Civil Code there isn’t any Article which prevents people whose Conflict of Interest is known/declared to participate in discussions, while it is absolutely clear that they cannot vote or express their opinion about the vote. I would be surprised is the German Civil Code is completely different from the Italian Civil Code, given that for multiple reasons the Italian Civil Code deals with the discipline of the Conflict of Interest with more details than other European Civil Codes. Of course, I am eager to see the professional statements which confirm that people with a known/declared Conflict of Interest cannot participate in discussions, and I am eager to discuss these statements with their authors.
By the way, given the tone of many messages by the members of the Board of Directors who have not declared a Conflict of Interest (and by other people who do not belong to the Board of Directors), I personally think that all members of the Board of Directors should not take part in any discussion and vote as they all have a Conflict of Interest (given that one of the reasons for the Conflict of Interest is enmity/animosity, a condition which is extremely clear from the tone of many messages).