Asking your input!

[cornouws]

Dear community,

The board would like to get your input for a framework document, which has still to be written, to help board and staff to cooperate in the best way, based on mutual respect of opinions and roles.
Please do share your wishes and/or ideas about the topics that you think should or may be covered by that document.

We expect to get this feedback within the next four weeks. In some more words, it is stated in the recent board decision:

- What experiences, wishes, hopes, goals are there, that should
  benefit from guidelines, rules, procedures in the to be written
  policy?
- Input is asked from members of staff, MC, Board of Directors,
  Board of Trusties, Advisory Board, and the community.
- People are asked to state - if relevant to them - which items
  are more or less urgent or important in their view.
- Of course input based on experiences, existing policies etc is
  welcome as well.
- We expect all ideas to be brought in with positive intention, and
  shaped/written as such. Questions for clarification are fine.
  Discussion if certain input is 'right' or 'wrong', is not asked
  for in this phase.
- People who want to provide anonymous input with e.g. experiences,
  are advised to find another community member that wan write
  something as an example, case, or whatever.

You can send your input in several ways: (1) a direct reply to this announcement, (2) a message on the tdf-internal@ list, or (3) an email to directors@ (board and ED only).
During this first stage, every proposal will be considered and fully respected.

After gathering all input, the board will work at a draft document. At that time, we will ask for a specific feedback on the document contents, which we be carefully considered for the final version.

Thanks for your help,

Cor

. . - . . - . . - . .
Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Winterfeldtstraße 52, 10781 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: Imprint | LibreOffice - Free Office Suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

[cornouws]

Hi all,

I’ve moved all discussion (back) here
Let’s keep this topic for what it is called: the input.

Reading all judgment and thoughts, I have no doubt that you all have ideas for the process to write the policy/document/…
thanks!

[Sweetshark]

Proposal for discussion: OKRs for TDF directors and staff

The board is currently considering introducing a staff policy, and is asking here for ideas, comments and feedback. Based on more abstract and fundamental considerations I have one suggestion to consider as a starting point. It might not solve the nitty-gritty details of the interaction between trustees, board and staff and as such, but it might perhaps help (re)-building the foundation (no pun intended) for that by improving transparency on objectives and goals and help with alignment of various parties in the LibreOffice ecosystem.

This proposal is to consider to establish Objectives and Keyresults (OKRs) for both directors and staff of the Document Foundation.

This:

• could be done quarterly, biannually or annually. Biannually is likely best fit with checkpoints at LO conference and FOSDEM (also: major LibreOffice releases) for when completion of key results should be aimed for.
• establishes each staff member and directors should set themselves 1-2 objectives derived from the foundations preamble. Staff should discuss their objectives with whom they report to before they commit. Directors should consider feedback from their peers and possibly from the trustees before they commit.
• establishes each objective should have 3-5 key results, with an emphasis on “outcome, not output”.
• establishes the objectives should have at least one key result about the product (that is: things that primarily provide value to non-contributing users of the foundations output).
• establishes the objectives should have at least one more key results about the project (that is: things that primarily provide value to contributing peers and the sustainable community of project development) than about the product (see above).
• establishes resources used for the goals should be included in the discussion (allocated work time for staff, allocated funds for directors).
• establishes at the end of the period (e.g. half a year), key results status should be checked, discussed and new OKRs selected.
• should encourage intermediate discussion of progress (e.g. monthly in blog posts).
• should not be primarily a means for performance reviews, though it might provide a starting point for discussion the challenges facing staff and board.

Consider this bullet list as a starting point for a discussion on how this might be implemented, not a “this way or not at all” proposal. TDF does not need to do OKRs like e.g. google did, as it is a very different kind of entity.

Still I think this – or something like this – might help trustees, board and staff to communicate on their shared goals and objectives better.

Happy to hear constructive feedback – especially suggestions on modifications and improvements adapting this to the way TDF works or alternative approaches that might work better for its setup!

Best Regards,

Bjoern

example for a product key results:

• an enhancement issue in bugzilla with multiple dependencies is resolved
• number of LibreOffice downloads have increase 10% year over year

example for a project key results:

• a monthly meeting with QA contributors has been established with three or more participants
• number of active code contributors increased 10% year over year

[cornouws]

Hi Bjoern,

[Sweetshark] Sweetshark
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/sweetshark

…
Happy to hear constructive feedback –

Thanks!

Cor

[ilmari]

@Sweetshark

establishes each staff member and directors should set themselves 1-2 objectives derived from the foundations preamble. Staff should discuss their objectives with whom they report to before they commit. Directors should consider feedback from their peers and possibly from the trustees before they commit.

Can you explain why you would not adhere to the current best practice of not defining OKRs for individuals?

[htietze]

@Sweetshark

Proposal for discussion: OKRs for TDF directors and staff

What exact problem do you solve with OKR, KPI, PR? How to define goals for recurring tasks, which many of the staff members have. What does this add to the communication with the stakeholders, aka user, we do currently, thinking of the annual report?

Maybe rhetorical questions, but to pick number of users, downloads, donations as a measure the staff is doing a damn good job.

[cornouws]

Thanks for your questions, Ilmari and Heiko.
And if Bjoern gives his explanation, my I invite us all then then, for the moment, to accept that as his idea, without going to discuss the possible (dis-)advantages, rights or wrongs?
Thanks - Cor

[PaoloVecchi]

I totally agree with your comment and link @ilmari.

I had a look at possible KPIs/OKRs back when Kendy proposed them and found them hardly applicable to individuals in a small organisation like TDF where members of staff need to deal with many different tasks that are often difficult to measure in terms of quantity and efficiency.

We all have to deal with tasks that cannot be standardised easily so we can only measure the success of a collective effort to further TDF’s mission and goals.

As stated by @htietze some KPIs are already been measured by the annual report and the results brought in by the team are impressive.

If some KPIs have to be measured then the board should lead by example in measuring how well it is doing in creating a level playing field for new potential contributors, how objective and impartial their decisions are and how well the decisions comply with legal advice and standards used by public sector organisations.

[mikesaunders]

And if Bjoern gives his explanation, my I invite us all then then, for the moment, to accept that as his idea, without going to discuss the possible (dis-)advantages, rights or wrongs?

But Bjoern explicitly said he’s happy to hear feedback…

[Sweetshark]

Hi all,

Can you explain why you would not adhere to the current best practice of not defining OKRs for individuals ?

As a sidenote: Using OKRs for personal performance certainly has challenges, but I have seen that work in practice when implemented with care.

However, I dont think that applies for the staff of Document Foundation as they work in specific teams of the LibreOffice project. All of the examples given above can and should be understood as team achievements in parts of the LibreOffice project. So in summary: the objectives should not be about individual/personal contribution, but about coordinating parts of the LibreOffice project to be more effective.

What exact problem do you solve with OKR, KPI, PR?

As discussed in the blog post the goal is to discuss and align the focus of contributors within the goals of the foundation. The goal is not to create perverse incentives or reenact Goodhart’s Law. This is why the objectives and key results are selected by yourself: You should believe they are to be achieved 70% at the end.

Discussing why it was easier or harder with peers in the project will make us all learn better where the true challenges in the project are.

How to define goals for recurring tasks, which many of the staff members have.

You dont. OKRs arent everything and should not cover everything. Independent of OKRs, many recurring tasks are often poison to productivity, so if they take high amounts of work time, this should be challenged too and possibly automated or otherwise avoided.

What does this add to the communication with the stakeholders, aka user, we do currently, thinking of the annual report?

So first of all, being a stakeholder requires an economic exchange, which simply does not happen with non-contributing users. The stakeholders for board and staff are the contributing users, which, as most contributors are also users, can be shortened to contributors. Those in turn should be the trustees, if the foundation (esp. the membership committee) does its job well.

Its pretty clear to me that there is a lack of alignment, focus and shared understanding in the foundations goals between contributors right now. There needs to be more exchange between contributors on this and the privileged contributors on board and staff have a special responsibility there.

But Bjoern explicitly said he’s happy to hear feedback…

Notably, I said constuctive feedback. Unfortunately, that excludes Paolos reply, which seems to discuss a strawman, not what I originally proposed.

I would love to hear both staff and board discuss how they intend to bring forward the goals of the foundation allowing trustees to get a clearer picture on how resources – both the foundations funds and the staffs time is spend.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi @Sweetshark,

not sure why I’ve been singled out for not having provided “constructive feedback”.

True that some consider constructive feedback on comments that agree with what it has been proposed but there are others that find constructive feedback comments that help in finding the issue in a proposal which would allow to evaluate if it’s actually a good idea to pursue it further.

To me is clear that TDF’s members of staff are achieving great results despite the situation in the board so, IMHO, it is more urgent to fix the issues within the board by following legal advice, following the recommendations we received from the MC and by getting the members of staff to tell us clearly what we should improve without fear of reprisals (that’s why a separate staff protection mechanism developed by our legal counsel is important and urgent).

These are some of the reasons why I consider the proposal to be premature and that the focus at present should be on other more urgent issues.

I hope my point of view is clearer also for you.

Ciao

Paolo

[Sweetshark]

Hi Paolo,

@PaoloVecchi

… that the focus at present should be on other more urgent issues.

Well, as the board has asked for input here, that can be assumed to be a minory position. Which is fine, actually. However, if you consider the topic to not be urgent, I’d like to suggest you to spend your time on the things you consider to be more so, instead of adding friction on topics you consider not urgent.

Best,

Bjoern

[Sweetshark]

Hi @ilmari @htietze,

did my answers help clarify a bit what I am aiming for with the proposal?

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[htietze]

@Sweetshark

did my answers help clarify a bit what I am aiming for with the proposal?

It’s pretty clear what your opinion is, and I hope I made mine clear too. We actually have too many discussions, and everyone better think first what her/his position is and comment just once. Essentially we disagree who the staff is working for. And I think Cor’s intention was not to improve the board’s trust in the team’s performance.

[Sweetshark]

Hi @htietze,

@htietze

Essentially we disagree who the staff is working for.

Yes, indeed a lot of confusion seems to stem from misalignment there and I agree this discussion here (which is about the concrete way of working) is not the best place to further discuss this. OTOH, a constructive debate on improving the way of working here would likely require agreement on whom the staff reports to and works for. So I think that discussion should happen, but elsewhere.

@htietze

And I think Cor’s intention was not to improve …

Such implications are not helpful, especially when presented without at least a suggestion on what they are based.

Anyway, I hope there will be more input here from others as it is pretty evident that the status quo of interaction between staff and their environment they work in is currently lacking, so clearly change is needed and a diverse set of impulses from all the trustees and contributors would be very helpful.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

[cornouws]

Hi Heiko, Bjoern,

[htietze] htietze https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/htietze
… And I think Cor’s intention was
not to improve the board’s trust in the team’s performance.

I read Bjoern’s suggestion goes towards both board and team.
It does not match precisely with what the board has in mind with this
policy process proposal, and Bjoern hinted at that himself in his
introduction.
But since there more various areas where we work on improvements, it is
definitely interesting to consider.

Cheers,
Cor

[jbfaure]

Question 1: What experiences, wishes, hopes, goals are there, that should benefit from guidelines, rules, procedures in the to be written policy?

My answer: None.

Question 2: People are asked to state - if relevant to them - which items are more or less urgent or important in their view.

My answer: Let the team work. Team organization should be the sole responsibility of the Executive Director.

Question 3: Of course input based on experiences, existing policies etc is welcome as well.

My answer: Most of the time, procedures are an obstacle to achieving objectives.

[Telesto]

Question 1: What experiences, wishes, hopes, goals are there, that should benefit from guidelines, rules, procedures in the to be written policy?

My answer: None.

Advantage: clarification/information
Risk: juridification

Question 3: Of course input based on experiences, existing policies etc is welcome as well.

My answer: Most of the time, procedures are an obstacle to achieving objectives.

A tendency to agree on this in the current context. The demand for more rules is based on massive distrust in the board by othersiders and within the board. The intention (of the board) might be to gain trust by adding/ defining all sorts rules. From perspective of those don’t like the functioning of the board: to restrict the board.

It’s surely not helping to clarify thing c.q. straighten things out. At conception of protocols: endless debates about content and interpretation driven by reading something in good or bad faith.
In the long term: those rules, or procedures (if agreed upon) give all sorts of munition to dispute/contest any decision made. It’s perfect tool the incapacitate to board.

Confidence in the board/support for the board is pre-required to be able to ‘govern’. This appears to be lacking to some extend or in full. I’m unable to tell this if this a general sentiment or very vocal group of people. I only see lots of smoldering (personal) grudges. And it appears that the balance between commercial interest and open source being contested.