Hello,
I hoped that I don’t have to add more to this lengthy thread. In the end, however, saying nothing to this also public discussion does not feel like a good option either.
Background
I am really surprised to see this topic pushed so much. The public vote on protection of employees has not progressed so far yet.
The situation at TDF is that subordinate employees have to estimate and evaluate tenders and handle the related payments. Bidders represented in the board participate in these tenders. At the same time, these bidders and board members are the bosses of the employees. The progress of tenders is also part of the annual employee performance review about me, where it is assessed how good or bad I do my job. Responsible for this review in the past were also board members who are bidders. This already makes the situation very complicated.
Transparency and openness is something that I strongly advocate for. However, now we discuss a policy that is relevant only for the the team, but with the whole world watching. The feeling I have is like in a zoo, where everybody looks at the animals in the cage. The members of the team are also a part of the community, but the feeling is a lot different these days. Due to all this, several team members do not feel they can be a true part of the community anymore.
The vast majority of the feedback recommends to not proceed with the policy. This also matches the feedback from the advisory board that was shared in this thread. I saw only a few supporters of such a policy. Everyone else advised against.
In this thread we learned that the board has a law firm working on the policy. The team is on their own. This does not give any feeling of confidence. It gives a feeling of threat and subordination.
Experiences
From what I remember, things started to turn bad about three and a half years ago. There was a private board decision on a specific topic that included commercial activities. The decision then was made public. It sparked a lot of questions from the wider community. Many had concerns and questions, including members of the then-next board. It also raised questions by members of the team. They were unsure about their future work situation, about TDF’s funding and the future path of LibreOffice - very essential things not only for employees.
So we as a team worked on a set of questions and sent them to the board. We did so only in private, not in public. Still, that lead to some very unpleasant phone calls for some of us. Several employees reported they felt pressured and attacked during these one-on-one-calls.
The questions were only asked to the board in private. This is a channel that should be trustworthy and safe, where people can speak out freely without fear. Also from today’s point of view, I still think the questions are quite reasonable. Some questions address issues that were discussed also later on in the community.
In my interactions with the team, I always try to encourage them to speak out, ask questions to me, raise concerns over my decisions, disagree with me and point at mistakes I make. This not only gives a feeling of belonging together. Even more, it also helps me to avoid making mistakes, and it helps the team to grow and evolve. We are all human beings, we all live in our “bubble”, and a view from outside often is very helpful and brings in new perspectives. I am very happy if people challenge my decisions, because it helps everyone to get better and learn.
It is really sad that something that happened three and a half years ago leads to the situation we are in now. All of us will only lose. Of course, the board can vote on any policy they see fit. However, the toxic situation at TDF, that is also known to the board since at least 2021, has been described as unbearably by several members of the team. That is not only a problem about communication inside the board, but also in communication with the team. Several employees report health issues due to their job. What happens now makes things only worse. You might end up with a policy, but at the price of losing several people.
Behaviours
In the end, the board asks for feedback in public, and the deadline ends this Saturday. So I will mention just a few things that, if there will be a policy, must be considered from my point of view.
Please keep in mind: I explicitly do NOT support or endorse such a policy. I do NOT make a proposal for the policy because I suggest to have one. I make a proposal to have at least a tiny little bit less painful and devastating outcome and hope to retain more people in the team.
I will only mention things that I have personally experienced. However, this is not only about me. I simply don’t want to share something other team members might perceive as very intimate and personal without their explicit consent.
I will not name the involved people here and I hope this will not be to my disadvantage.
-
During a formal employee meeting with me, one director expressed to another director participating in the meeting how much he dislikes him, in very strong words. Hostility amongst board members can not swap over to formal meetings with employees. Whatever is discussed or decided there otherwise will be tainted, affected and influenced by that behaviour. Employees must have a fair and impartial setup to interact with the board, especially in formal meetings.
-
One specific director is not involved in certain staff-related activity because some members of the board say they do not trust him anymore. Employees cannot be deprived of their right to work with their managers. Hostility amongst board members needs to be resolved at the board level. Elected directors stay elected directors and it cannot be made harder to employees to interact with an elected board member if they wish so.
-
There are known tensions between TDF as an organization and some companies represented by members of the board. For certain formal staff meetings, this puts employees in the unresolvable situation to not act to the disadvantage of TDF. The board needs to resolve these things at the board level and not put the burden on the subordinate employees. Board members are also representatives of organizations with which there are tensions. Employees must have the safety and protection to only work in the best of interest of TDF and TDF only.
-
As executive director, certain formal communication regarding these tensions are addressed to me, on behalf of TDF. Such communication comes with my role. However, employees cannot be subordinated to board members who at the same time act as representatives of a company that deals with TDF, even more so when there are tensions between TDF and these companies. There must be a clear distinction in subordination and reporting and it must be clear in which capacity people act.
-
During a formal employee meeting, one director told me I was a partisan and a political agitator. This is untrue. Formal meetings should be based on objective criteria, not on unsubstantiated attacks expressed in aggressive words. Verbal attacks and unjustified accusations against employees cannot be tolerated, especially not in formal employee meetings. Another member of the board, who participated in this meeting, did not take any action. This is not acceptable.
-
Certain formal employee meetings seem not to be known to the full board. In the past, sometimes a board majority even fully disagreed with the scope and outcome. As a general rule, with exceptions as aforementioned, team members cannot be hindered from involving their managers and elected directors in certain topics. All elected directors must be aware of any formal activities regarding employees. Treatment of employees must happen in a fair, impartial manner and only by those who are not involved into tensions between TDF and their own companies.
-
In an internal chat group with board, membership committee and team, one director made a comment about me that put me close to a politician, according to Wikipedia, whose “views and comments […] have been described as far-right and populist”. Attacks on employees by their direct managers, even more so in front of all other colleagues from the various bodies, cannot be tolerated.
-
A former board member discredited me towards a member of the team. Behind my back, the person said TDF was controlled by Florian Effenberger and complained that I would do political agitation. It is not ok to discredit team members towards their colleagues. It is even worse when it happens behind their backs. The board was informed, but did not take any action.
-
A board member talked to another member of the team and asked if it wasn’t suspicious that Florian spends so much time with one specific director. It is not appropriate to suggest a team member would influence an elected director, or that an elected director let themselves be influenced by a team member.
-
After a board vote, that was based on clear legal recommendations by several lawyers, the board sent an e-mail to a company with which TDF has tensions with. That e-mail was sent in private by a member of the board and signed by four members of the board. After receiving it, a former board member, whose company was a recipient of that letter, painted me in public as being part of a “(self-appointed?) small board sub-group” and hinted that the “instruction & brief” to the lawyer was done wrong. Neither have I signed the letter, nor have I sent it. Interestingly, I was explicitly mentioned even if I did not sign the e-mail, but two other signing board members were not. Upon learning the aforementioned things, the board took no action. When a subordinate team member gets discredited, they deserve support and protection from TDF as their employer. When attacks happen in public, support and protection must happen in public too. All board members are responsible for the wellbeing of the employees. There are also other known actions of attacks in public where employees were left fully unprotected.
-
I was told that certain concerns cannot be shared with the board, because they don’t like to hear that, as they are all volunteers. The board, if they like it or not, represents TDF as the employer of a team of way more than a dozen people now. Things can be structured differently, so much less of the day to day operations and decisions is with the board, but ultimately, turning down concerns from the team because all board members are volunteers leaves the employees without a point of contact.
-
In the meantime, one particular meeting concerning members of staff that took place in March 2020 is known in public. Any policy must include clear and stark sanctions for the drivers behind such events.
Conclusion
What happens here, pushing through a policy, will be just detrimental for everyone. It will further poison the atmosphere. It will add to demotivation and frustration. Members of the team will continue to look for new jobs, because they can’t stand the toxic work atmosphere at TDF anymore. I hope the very few people who actually do support this policy are aware of the possible outcome.
I assume someone reply will be that with all the examples I made, I obviously also want a policy, so all this can be addressed. Let me make it abundantly clear: I do NOT consider a policy helpful at all. A policy will create further issues and wounds and will poison the environment at TDF even further.
If you want to see employees quit or suffer burnout, go with a policy. If you want to fix the problems at TDF, do NOT do a policy.
The things that are not working, and that make people quit their jobs and walk away, and make them suffer from health issues, is broken human interaction, problems with self-understanding, and a lack of respect. Getting these back into place is based on an understanding on how we all want to work together. It is based on how we see ourselves and each other, and how we envision the environment we want to create to work in together.
People are still here, willing to solve the situation to the benefit of TDF and the full community. Don’t burn these people further.
If that is lacking, no policy in the world can fix that. It can make things only significantly worse.
Florian
