Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

Board Discuss
#1

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37&p2=49&p3=107&iso=20221031T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
     Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
     questions to the board and about TDF

2. Status Report: Strategy planning (Cor Nouws, 5 mins)

     * status update and next steps
     * based on the Milano strategy workshop
     * materials: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129829

3. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian
     Effenberger, 5 mins)

     Status report and various ongoing discussions
     * Cloph to work out a proposal, which update regime with roughly
       one year of updates (regardless of purchasing time) could work
     * one year of updates seems reasonable
     * vouchers do not scale, creating internal, staggered releases on
       the stores might do (to group users together, so timings for EOL
       can be ~independent from purchasing dates)

5. Discuss: OSI initiative on FLOSS in app stores (Thorsten, Simon, 10
     mins)

     * OSI is currently asking for input & experience from FLOSS
       projects
     * agree on who does what til when

6. Vote, Discuss: Get some lobbying activity started in Brussels
     (Thorsten, Italo, 5 mins)

     * Italo made a proposal to the board
     * motion: approve this year's travel expenses from the (still
       plentiful) marketing budget

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

     * ESC provided evaluation
     * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html
     * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
       attic for the moment
     * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html ?

### Private Part

8. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
     Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

9. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)
     Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

10. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
      Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

      * Second quarter for the new board is up, so let's hear reports
        from the various oversight groups.

11. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
      Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
      sending the agenda

#2

Is the paper from Italo mentioned for discussion in Item 6 available for trustees to review as well please?

Thanks

Simon

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:05 PM Stephan Ficht <stephan.ficht@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37&p2=49&p3=107&iso=20221031T18

AGENDA:

Public Part

  1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
    Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
    questions to the board and about TDF

  2. Status Report: Strategy planning (Cor Nouws, 5 mins)

  1. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian
    Effenberger, 5 mins)

Status report and various ongoing discussions

  • Cloph to work out a proposal, which update regime with roughly
    one year of updates (regardless of purchasing time) could work
  • one year of updates seems reasonable
  • vouchers do not scale, creating internal, staggered releases on
    the stores might do (to group users together, so timings for EOL
    can be ~independent from purchasing dates)
  1. Discuss: OSI initiative on FLOSS in app stores (Thorsten, Simon, 10
    mins)
  • OSI is currently asking for input & experience from FLOSS
    projects
  • agree on who does what til when
  1. Vote, Discuss: Get some lobbying activity started in Brussels
    (Thorsten, Italo, 5 mins)
  • Italo made a proposal to the board
  • motion: approve this year’s travel expenses from the (still
    plentiful) marketing budget
  1. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
  • ESC provided evaluation
  • discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

  • conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
    attic for the moment
  • auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
?

Private Part

  1. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
    Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

  2. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)
    Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

  3. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten
    Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
    Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

  • Second quarter for the new board is up, so let’s hear reports
    from the various oversight groups.
  1. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
    Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
    sending the agenda

–
Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.ficht@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

–
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

–

#3

Hi all,

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37&p2=49&p3=107&iso=20221031T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

* ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

* conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
      attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
?

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/)
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

Regards,
Andreas

#4

Hi Andreas,

thank you for you valuable feedback.

As I've been under investigation for potential personal interests on LOOL, by potentially conflicted members of the board, for a few months I will refrain from influencing the discussion and until the investigation is over to vote on any decision.

Just a reminder of a summary of what happened at the time as unfortunately we experienced once again the presentation of a one sided version of the LOOL discussion during LibOCon:

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00029.html

Hi all,

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37&p2=49&p3=107&iso=20221031T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

* ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

* conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
      attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html

?

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

2 until the investigation against me reached its conclusion.

(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/)

(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

That would be my take but it seems the majority of the board disagrees.

Regards,
Andreas

Ciao

Paolo

#5

Hi Andreas, all,
dear board members,

@Andreas: I think your point of view is an interesting and logical way to look at this point.

I am asking to know each director's opinion on this. Then we can discuss it and everyone can form an informed opinion.

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37&p2=49&p3=107&iso=20221031T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

* ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

* conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
      attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
?

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/)
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

Cheers
Stephan

#6

Hi Andreas, all.

So sorry to have to keep repeating this, but the error it relates to is still being repeated without regard to my earlier explanations.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:07 PM Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> wrote:

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

Independently of any investigation, the owner and director of Omnis Cloud Sarl clearly has an interest in this topic as the company offers hosting of NextCloud and OwnCloud for clients according to https://omniscloud.eu/open-source-platforms/ and may be a partner of the related companies according to https://omniscloud.eu/ - whether it creates a conflict with his role at TDF is a matter for him to decide.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you’ll find out that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

This is not so; all of these five directors are free to participate if they believe they should and there is no breach of trust on their part. Having an interest to declare is not the same as having a conflict of interest no matter how often the implication is made that having an interest is disqualifying. If all of these directors believe their employers’ interests - which are clearly well understood - can be held in balance with their personal elected role at TDF then the onus is on an accuser to demonstrate why it is impossible for them to balance their work life and private life in this case.

So far I have not seen any attempt by anyone to demonstrate why all these five directors are in breach of trust over the well-understood interests. I suggest you do so before you repeat calls to exclude elected directors from TDF’s business.

Regards

Simon

–

#7

Hi all, hi Simon,

(...)

    If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that
    it is
    necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the
    meeting.
    The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
    and could not decide on this topic.

This is not so; all of these five directors are free to participate if
they believe they should and there is no breach of trust on their
part. *Having an interest to declare is not the same as having a
/conflict/ of interest* no matter how often the implication is made
that having an interest is disqualifying. If all of these directors
believe their employers' interests - which are clearly well understood
- can be held in balance with their personal elected role at TDF then
the onus is on an accuser to demonstrate why it is impossible for them
to balance their work life and private life in this case.

sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF. And if you would have
had a look into the document from the European Commision that was linked
by Paolo, you would know that you look onto this topic is not
appropriate for member states of the European Union.

It has not be proofed that a member of the board _has_ a CoI. It's
sufficient that he may have a CoI (potential). And if your company is
involved with the development and marketing/sale of Collabora Online you
have at least a potential CoI within LOOL and its future. And I'm being
very reluctant with speaking only of a potential CoI this time. Others
wouldn't formulate that reluctant.

So far I have not seen any attempt by anyone to demonstrate why all
these five directors are in breach of trust over the well-understood
interests. I suggest you do so before you repeat calls to exclude
elected directors from TDF's business.

Maybe you look into the European Commission document, linked by Paolo in
an earlier post, you'd get the complete knowledge on the topic within
countries of the European Union, like the one of TDF's home.

Regards,
Andreas

#8

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:40 PM Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> wrote:

sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.

The TDF policy was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a full review, and has several places where clearer language would be welcome. The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum of potential personal interests that affect an open source community. In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong conclusions. I’ll assume those are the reasons why you have misunderstood it, rather than implying you have not read it.

It’s clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware that the Board has determined that any of the five people you keep accusing of a breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their personal interests with TDF’s interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation and mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a harmful way. I strongly suggest TDF’s Board follow that practice and leave accusations of breach of trust as a rare exception.

Regards

Simon

–

#9

Hi all, hi Simon,

and also sorry for another post to correct misleading statements.

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

    sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
    are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.

The TDF policy
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf>
was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a
full review, and has several places where clearer language would be
welcome. The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum
of potential personal interests that affect an open source community. 
In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the
wrong conclusions.  I'll assume those are the reasons why you have
misunderstood it, rather than implying you have not read it.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the
Board has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware
that the Board has determined that any of the five people you keep
accusing of a breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their
personal interests with TDF's interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by
default that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a
declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the
organisation in a harmful way. I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow
that practice and leave accusations of breach of trust as a
rare exception.

it looks like you are not aware of the rules which applies to any
director of a foundation under German law like TDF. If a director has
especially a personal financial or business interest on a topic he could
not act on both sides of the same table. Because it is not possible to
throw away his personal interest she/he had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on TDF side. She/he _has_ a (at least) potential CoI
on that topic and thus is not allowed to act on the side of the foundation.

If she/he will not follow this rule it's a breach of the TDF statutes,
the TDF CoI policy and also of the general regulations.

It's not important how processes are done on organizations you served on
the board, but how things had to be handled within the TDF statutes and
the regulations, which apply for TDF' s place of business.

Regards,
Andreas

#10

Hi Simon,

In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong conclusions.

Everyone can read there [1]:
"A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a Conflict of Interest when it *can* result in improper conduct."

My understanding of the word *can* is here: The possibility alone is sufficient.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board has determined that it is based on the evidence.

Everyone can read there[1]:
"The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action."

My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing Conflict of Interest, right?

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust

Indeed and very true. I am all with you.

most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default
that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a harmful way.

Great if that works out.

I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow that practice

I think thus following the actual Conflict of Interest Policy (BoD)[1] is a good starting point. And to consider what is written there, rather than interpretation.

Best
Stephan

[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf

#11

Hi,

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

It is interesting that this topic pops up again...
At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic, the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development on LOOL:
no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.
Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb, I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is open to all members. I'll continue there.

Cheers,
Cor

*) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic

#12

Hi Stephan!

OK, one more reply (against my better judgement!)

In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong
conclusions.
Everyone can read there [1]:
“A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a
Conflict of Interest when it can result in improper conduct.”

My understanding of the word can is here: The possibility alone is
sufficient.

I do not read it that way. In that sentence “tends” and “can” go together and inform us the writer of that phrase felt that personal interest and CoI were usually the same thing but not always, without giving us any tools to understand when. The document promises to help us determine which personal interests conflict with TDF’s interests, and the only place a tool for that exists is in Section 5.3. So the best approach is still to regard 5.3 as definitive.

It’s clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board
has determined that it is based on the evidence.
Everyone can read there[1]:
“The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of
Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action.”

My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing
Conflict of Interest, right?

I would not say so, no - the text says “if” not “that”, and that conclusion is not appropriate unless and until a CoI is determined by the Board.

I would suggest you “look down the telescope the other way” and ask what the Board’s actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the existence of a CoI. Every director is well aware both of the policy and of every other director’s declared interests so it seems safe to use this as an indicator. Section 5.3 indicates that if the Board has received notice and neither taken action nor determined the personal interests rise to the level of a CoI then there is no CoI.

most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default
that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared
interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a
harmful way.
Great if that works out.

It has to be worth trying. Endlessly weaponising CoI to exclude TDF’s key contributors is getting tiresome.

And to consider what is written there, rather than interpretation.

There are unfortunately no safe direct readings of this document so interpretation is inevitable. Claiming any reading is plainly correct is itself an interpretive act.

Cheers

Simon

#13

Good morning Thorsten,

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?

Cheers
Stephan

#14

Hi Thorsten,

My answer to the first part below of your email (2022-10-30/14:57) related to my post on board-discuss@ ((2022-10-30/12:24):

Am 30.10.22 um 12:24 Stephan Ficht wrote:

@Andreas: I think your point of view is an interesting and logical way to
look at this point.

I am asking to know each director's opinion on this. Then we can discuss it
and everyone can form an informed opinion.

What is your opinion, Thorsten?

Ich halte es nicht für klug (und nicht in TDFs Interesse), diese
Diskussion öffentlich zu führen. Andreas ist mittlerweile Member, wir
können das also problemlos auf tdf-internal schieben.

===
browser translated:

I don't think it's wise (or in TDF's interest) to have this discussion public. Andreas is now a member, so we can easily move this to tdf-internal.

I don't think it's wise (or in TDF's interest) to have this discussion public.

end

Why please?
Who defines TDF's interest?
Where one can find it? German laws? TDF-manifesto? TDF-statutes?, TDF-policies, others?

===
browser translated:

Andreas is now a member, so we can easily move this to tdf-internal.

end

Independent of the sender I replied to a post on board-discuss@ in my capacity as member of the Board of Trustees or, at least, as someone expressing his opinion or asking a question on a public mailing list topic.
Why do you want to exclude those who will then no longer be able to follow this thread on tdf-internal?
Isn't board-discuss@ destinated to discuss with the TDF's board to involve the wider community and interested people?

Könntest Du bitte Deine Frage dort neu stellen?

===
browser translated:

Could you please re-post your question there?

end

Please let me wait for your answers first.

Sorry
Stephan

#15

Hi Stephan,

Stephan Ficht wrote:

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?

I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Best,

-- Thorsten

#16

Hi Thorsten,

Stephan Ficht wrote:

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?

I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Ok. So the information was shared on board-discuss@

Thanks
Stephan

#17

Hi,

Hi,

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

It is interesting that this topic pops up again...

and also very interesting that the reply is again a side track. Some
would also say trying to lay a smoke-screen

At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic,
the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic
policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development
on LOOL:
no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.

It is not about code sanity, but about blocking the development of LOOL
under the TDF umbrella and within LibreOffice resources. And if you look
at the Collabora staff website
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/) you'll find out, that the
sales team member of this ecosystem company, which sells the LibreOffice
Online fork 'Collabora Online, states here that he has no potential
personal interest in this topic.

This statement is a complete misunderstanding of the TDF policy and the
regulations for members of a board of a legal entity.

Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in
working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb,
I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".

It's a shame that a member of the board of a Free Software entity refer
to develop OSS software on a proprietary resource and close the the
doors of the entity.

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.

It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?

Regards,
Andreas

#18

Hi all,

Hi,

Hi,

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.

It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?

I agree with Andreas that this discussion should be kept public. I find this ping pong between private and public lists very problematic for the transparency and the clarity of the debate. Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.

Cheers
Sophie

#19

hi Andreas,

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

but why do you stop at this step?

if i count correctly, of the directors that approved various versions of the CoI policy, a majority of them either have subsequently restricted their actions due to potential CoI, or there is an investigation for potentially having a CoI ongoing at the moment.

following your line of argument that the policy applies to decisions that lead to decisions where the policy applies, it's clear that none of them should have participated in discussing or voting on the CoI policy, since all of them have an obvious CoI with the CoI policy because it could potentially restrict their actions, and therefore the CoI policy has never been properly accepted for lack of quorum (4 directors).

[board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.2 of the CoI policy
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05506.html

of 6 votes, 4 were by directors with potential CoI

[board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss%40documentfoundation.org/msg05130.html

of 5 votes, 3 were by directors with potential CoI

in both cases, only 2 directors who don't have an interest in the CoI policy participated in the vote.

best regards,
  michael

#20

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:06 AM sophi <sophi@libreoffice.org> wrote:

Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.

Are all TDF Trustees on board-discuss then? Do you have statistics to clarify this please?

Forcing divisive discussions to be held in public chills contributions from people whose employers (not necessarily LibreOffice-related) prefer staff to avoid public disputes and advantages those who have no such concerns. That’s why it is a smart policy to keep “family business inside the family” and conduct Trustee business on a Trustee mailing list.

The best solution would be to scrap the tdf-internal list and have these discussions on tdf-membership where everyone with responsibility for the eventual outcome is subscribed but where the media cannot abuse their contributions and future employers can’t find it in searches.

Cheers

Simon

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.