Asking your input!

[jucasaca]

I completely agree that a policy cannot solve the problem, much less a policy made by a BoD that is in part a generator of the problem.
Even if the policy were to be created, it would be a big problem to approve it by an inoperative BoD in which a couple of the members oppose anything another couple proposes and vice versa and the rest are totally inoperative. What policy will be the result of this board?
Probably a new board of directors will not solve all the problems, but what I am sure of is that this board is proving to be incapable of solving problems due to the continuous confrontations between them.

[Sweetshark]

HI Paolo,

@PaoloVecchi

Months ago I proposed to have a representative of the staff in the board so as you are one of the founders I do invite you to be that representative so that you can experience first hand what causes “frictions”, “communication issues” and how “consensus building” or “on-boarding” meetings are ran to wear people out in accepting a predetermined outcome.

That is a horrible idea. The board as elected represents the trustees will of how to interpret the statues of the foundation. If the board is having disagreements it is because it has to represent different positions of the trustees. Staff should ideally not have privileged representation on the board over other trustees, and if anything it already is significantly privileged in their access to leadership over other trustees.

Neither individual members of the board, nor the staff can solve their problems by simply rejecting or ignoring what the electorate – which should be the active contributors to the project – chose.

Thus, the most worrying development of the last years is the number of board members stepping down, leaving the remaining board as something not quite representing what the trustees elected.

Best,

Bjoern

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi @jucasaca,

you might have missed a few comments that explains better the situation.

@jucasaca

much less a policy made by a BoD that is in part a generator of the problem

The policy is being pushed by those members of the board that have been clearly identified as the generators of the problems.

@jucasaca

an inoperative BoD in which a couple of the members oppose anything another couple proposes and vice versa and the rest are totally inoperative.

There is a couple of directors, including the chairman, that push for that policy, a couple of directors that have been trying to convince those directors that it’s a very bad idea and 3 directors that follow what the 2 first director wants, by sending their +1, without even discussing the merits of most proposals with the whole board.

It has been confirmed several times that 2 members of the board have been excluded from those discussions. The few times that there has been the opportunity to ask those “inoperative” directors why they sent their +1 they have been unable to come up with coherent explanations.

@jucasaca

this board is proving to be incapable of solving problems due to the continuous confrontations between them.

As stated above this board is perfectly capable of dealing with the confrontations as 2 board members can count on the votes of 3 others that do not seem to question the validity, legality and usefulness of those decisions.

If there wasn’t a minority expressing their concerns about what is going on then these decisions would go out without much noise until the detrimental effects are clear to all. Is that what you prefer?

Ciao

Paolo

[drodriguez]

As a former member of the BoD I find it necessary to state that the conflicting members of the BoD are only there to represent purely commercial interests. That is why the objective behind the imposition of this policy is none other than to pave the way for total control (of the money) of the foundation (echoes TDC).
Reference is made to the pseudo-consensus, but in reality there remain trite arguments and the dismissal of any initiative that seeks to safeguard the interests of TDF.

[webmink]

Staff should ideally not have privileged representation on the board over other trustees, and if anything it already is significantly privileged in their access to leadership over other trustees.

This makes sense. Surely the correct path for a German legal entity is to have the staff form a Betriebsrat (works council) and then have it represented according to the existing guidance for organisations of TDF’s size and nature? That way there would be adequate representation without either arbitrarily unbalancing of the Board’s role acting for the Trustees or the risky creation of an untested policy which might deepen the problems.

(reposting as I accidentally deleted the original while editing)

[cornouws]

Hi Paolo,

@PaoloVecchi

as you stated that what I wrote is false I guess you are prepared to support your claims by sharing with the community:

This is a very interesting approach. You accuse me without showing evidence, and then you demand me to show that you are lying?

@PaoloVecchi

• your briefing and response you got from that law firm confirming that you committed to an expenditure starting with the conversation you had

You again repeat the accusation that I individually commit to spent TDF money, without a decision from the board. That looks to me to be a criminal action, would that be the case.
Reading your discussion with Thorsten (before here) it appears that you find it enough to base that on a a party providing a quotation that is said to cover also for costs for an initial call. Obviously that is not a serious way of doing business.

@PaoloVecchi

• the part of the briefing where only presented one PoV (yours and Thorsten’s), excluding comments from the team and comments from directors asking to start with a directors’ policy first and then see if a team policy is really necessary

The only briefing is that they will be asked to help drafting the policy, and that for that process they will get the input that the community has been given in the first phase. So nothing will be hided.

@PaoloVecchi

• the vote you sent out, which already shows the “window dressing” as you call it, to commit to get that law firm to write the draft of the policy despite having agreed otherwise

Interesting twist… You write a description, use words, that mean ‘window dressing’; not my words.
And you say that there is an agreement to not have a draft? Where should we find that?

@PaoloVecchi

• the various emails that have been sent to the law firm giving them evidence which require their disengagement since last year

You refer to several of your activities to actively fight board decisions, also behind the boards back…
Already wondered why the firm apparently sees no problem in having signed a contract with TDF?

@PaoloVecchi

• the board minutes confirming that there are serious issues with contracting that law firm
• the emails sent to the law firm by several participant of that meeting confirming those issues

Have these notes been authorized as correct by the director, the director who has stated clearly in writing that his words have been misinterpreted?
And why do you and some others continue holding to your false interpretation?
And why is it that you think that you have the right to say what someone else ‘is’ thinking?

@PaoloVecchi

In regard to what has been stated by the majority of people at LibOCon on how to proceed I presented my summary which is open to be challenged or confirmed by those that were present and I invite them to do so.

Around a hundred people were at LibOCon. In a meeting with roughly 20, some 10 people have asked critical question or shared concerns. These questions have been politely discussed and replied to. I see no remaining open questions at the moment. But clearly, would there be during writing a draft (in which the team will be involved) and reviewing the draft (in which the team will be involved), there will again be attention and an open discussion.
With the exchange I had with several people from the team in this topic (links…1, 2, …) I tried to explain the open character of the process, ask questions to understand, expressed that IMO the result must be fair and balanced, iow also tell something for directors etc.

@PaoloVecchi

@cornouws

Why is it that you constantly have to act like this?

Because the evidence we have confirm what I stated and I don’t like it when the team and the community is being mislead by statements that have little to do with the evidence we have.

Given the facts, it is not me who is misleading.
When we look at the meeting at the LibOCon, it seems that concerns are based on the fact that people seem to be made afraid of something they do not know, and there seem to be whispering that ‘we have already a policy written’ and more of these nonsense.
So far parts of this process look more like a FUD-show. But there’s plenty of opportunity to improve left

@PaoloVecchi

If the board wishes to regain trust then it has to accept for its actions and decisions to be scrutinised.

Scrutinizing is a process of truth finding. So far, your contributions fail clearly in that regard.

Cheers,
Cor

[webmink]

@drodriguez

the conflicting members of the BoD are only there to represent purely commercial interests

That’s a serious accusation of breach of trust you are making. I was on the Board for two terms before you and at no point did I witness a Board member acting against the interests of the Foundation in service of an employer. Have you sent the evidence to the Berlin Senatsverwaltung für Justiz?

[cornouws]

Hi Italo

@italovignoli

I totally second Florian’s comment. I don’t think that a policy - whatever policy - will solve the issues we have as a project and as a community.

I totally support your comment that a policy is not going to solve the issues. I have positive ideas about the possibility that it may help, as one of the elements in our work on improving.
Another aspect that will help us, is the process of working on the policy. And if we then will continue working on a final version, after reviewing the draft, or not, even doesn’t matter. I mean that if we can use the discussion to talk in a polite and fair way about pain points, and look at opportunities rather than to suffer in grief, we can really make progress.
And it is up to each of us, to do that in here public, on an internal list, or even ask for a smaller circle if that feels safer, more appropriate.
Florian’s comment holds various good elements that I will reply to a bit later. It is much content that of course also deserves a careful preparation.

@italovignoli

I have expressed several times my concerns and I have tried to suggest a way forward in different ways, but my suggestion has been ignored (and not because of the choice of an alternative solution). The situation has not improved, even with the help of a mediator.

For as far as I’m concerned, the work with a mediator hasn’t been finished. We started. Various people in the board and also Florian preferred to not work with mediation in Bucharest. In stead we had various facilitated meetings, that helped to clarify some basic questions and make some steps on other topics.
Still there is clear room for mediation activities with board and team, IMO.
Your advise with regard to improving communication and not taking everything to personal, to me is always valuable.

@italovignoli

I don’t see a commitment to find a positive solution to the current frictions at BoD level, and - even worse - I don’t see a new BoD as a potential solution, because the willingness to reach consensus is completely missing. Of course, a policy to solve communication issues with the team - if any - will not solve communication issues within the BoD, and may have negative collateral effects.

One of our duties is of course to shield the team from the stressful situation in the current board.
A policy - or the elements we’ll be learning from evaluating the draft, independent of where they will land - will help communication and behavior in both directions.
Apart from that: ‘improve our own work’ supported with procedures etc., is on the boards to-do list. It has e.g. been extensively discussed in the in person meeting in Budapest, and is certainly not forgotten

Thanks,
Cor

[Sweetshark]

HI Simon,

@webmink

Surely the correct path for a German legal entity is to have the staff form a Betriebsrat (works council) and then have it represented according to the existing guidance for organisations of TDF’s size and nature?

Interesting idea. A Betriebsrat is often connected with slowing decision making considerably down and introducing a lot of “Beamtenmentalitaet” (eh … “mindset focussing on redtape” maybe?). However, you make me realize this probably is already the case by now: and in a very unstructured way. Having the staff concerns about their own employment separated from general idea of the board as elected representation of the trustees might indeed channel things into somewhat more healthy and constructive form.

Best,

Bjoern

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi Cor,

@cornouws

You again repeat the accusation that I individually commit to spent TDF money, without a decision from the board. That looks to me to be a criminal action, would that be the case.

Looking at the email the board received, both you and Thorsten were involved in that call not just you.

@cornouws

Reading your discussion with Thorsten (before here) it appears that you find it enough to base that on a a party providing a quotation that is said to cover also for costs for an initial call. Obviously that is not a serious way of doing business.

We don’t know if you and Thorsten agreed at the beginning of the call you had, without informing the board, that the call itself would be chargeable.

It’s up to you to chose between a possible “criminal act” as you described it or a non serious way of doing business that would disqualify the supplier even more.

@cornouws

Scrutinizing is a process of truth finding. So far, your contributions fail clearly in that regard.

Maybe you want to volunteer that email showing that you accept scrutiny as you pretend it from anyone else?

In the meantime it would be great if you took in consideration all the negative comments that the proposal received and stop the process to avoid further damages.

Ciao

Paolo

[Sweetshark]

Hi Paolo,

@PaoloVecchi

Maybe you want to volunteer …

Its very simple: Either Cor followed due process or not. In the former case, there is nothing to do. In the latter case, you should:

• ask Cor to correct his mistake as it might have been an oversight. ONCE. In rare cases, it might be appropriate to do that here in this forum.
• If that fails to rectify the issue, you should escalate the issue to an authority that can fix the issue. This forum is never the right place for that.

That leaves no room for a constructive outcome of what you are doing here. Maybe consider what it implies if you continue anyway.

Best,

Bjoern

[sophi]

Hi all,

I fully support what you wrote Florian.
I happened to be pressured for telling what I think, for voicing what could have been done in better ways, expressing what orientations I thought TDF should follow. I’ve been seen as a traitor too because I have my own opinions. Never mind, I’m working for TDF and the community and nobody could prevent me to forge my own views on TDF future.

Today we should all be enjoying what is happening in Surakarta and we are there miserably trying to understand what a policy should solve for the team when the wrong behavior is at board level. I do not understand and I’m fed up to have to justify myself on each and every points.

Reading Florian’s conclusion, he explicitly wrote what I think and feel. Thank you so much Florian for your post, thanks also for the rare person you are, I’m really proud to work with you.

[hossein]

As an employee, I prefer to focus on the technical stuff and my tasks, and avoid politics. But as it is explicitly requested to give opinions in this matter that affects staff more directly, I try to enumerate some of the points I made during the joint session in LibOCon.

1. Gathering ideas in this way is like pretending that nothing is there! But, people are working inside TDF, accomplishing predefined tasks in a structure. There is management, working, including the manager and board of directors, and creating something from scratch is “the worst thing to do”. That’s what I say to the similar requests to rewrite LibreOffice from scratch in order to solve the problems! There is always room for improvement, but to reach to that, there is no way but sitting toghether, discussing the problems, and finding solutions.

2. I don’t think staff policy helps at this point. It can create more tensions, not less. After this is written, it has to be implemented. When almost everyone is against it, why do it? Board already has the power to follow the specific goals that it sees most beneficial for the project, and staff are trying to reach that with their daily work. If there are problems, deficiencies, low performance, or any other problems, nothing prevents the board to communicate the problem with the staff to fix it.

3. Having public discussions over problems can be good, but it’s not true that publicizing everything is good. When the problem is inside the management, the problem should be solved there, and not escalated and extended into the other people inclding staff. I think criticising people in public is not a good idea if you want to fix the things, and shaming someone in public is probably the worst if you want to make the working atmosphere better.

4. Subordinate relation can be problematic, specifically I think staff should be protected against the orders that they consider against specific law, breaking rules or ethics / faith, or abuse. I’m not saying the current board would do that, but that is something that may happen with such a relation.

[michaelweghorn]

Hi @cornouws,

As I mentioned earlier, having joined the team only in July, I still sometimes have the impress of lacking some background, but am trying to understand the current situation.
So far, I still don’t have the impression of having received answers that would would help me understand what issues a policy is trying to solve (s. e.g. the questions asked in Asking your input! - #78 by michaelweghorn and Asking your input! - #84 by michaelweghorn and only slightly touched in Asking your input! - #83 by cornouws ).

@cornouws

I totally support your comment that a policy is not going to solve the issues. I have positive ideas about the possibility that it may help, as one of the elements in our work on improving.
Another aspect that will help us, is the process of working on the policy. And if we then will continue working on a final version, after reviewing the draft, or not, even doesn’t matter. I mean that if we can use the discussion to talk in a polite and fair way about pain points, and look at opportunities rather than to suffer in grief, we can really make progress.
And it is up to each of us, to do that in here public, on an internal list, or even ask for a smaller circle if that feels safer, more appropriate.

As I mentioned during the in-person meeting in Bucharest, I agree that it’s important to address the pain points, but do not at all have the impression that this policy is helpful in this regard, but I think – at least in the current situation – it rather has the effect of escalating the situation further – as the discussion here also shows.

@cornouws

Still there is clear room for mediation activities with board and team, IMO.

To me, mediation actually sounds like a good approach. But I think that the impression that a policy is “pushed” regardless of all concerns does not at all help to rebuild trust and fix the situation.
As mentioned during the LibOCon meeting, I’d strongly recommend to at least pause the process of this policy and focus on mediation first, which I think would increase the chance of success.
If I remember correctly what the mediator explained, the goal of a mediation is that there’s a mutual agreement between the involved parties in the end, which sounds less like some group forcing something on some other group.
(There can of course be different views on whether or not that’s what’s happening here, but as the discussion here shows, this is at least the way it is perceived by many, and I currently don’t really expect that any upcoming draft will have good chances of fixing that.)

[ohallot]

[cornouws]

Hi all, Florian,

This deserves a clear and detailed response, obviously.
Some of the things cannot really be discussed in public; I’ll handle those in my reply on our private mailing list, tdf-internal. (Trustees who are not subscribed to that list, can of course contact me directly if they are interested.)

@floeff

I am really surprised to see this topic pushed so much. The public vote on protection of employees has not progressed so far yet.

You know that the board is discussing a form of staff protection related to tendering that really makes sense. This started somewhere in July. Given the task for the board and the factual information around that topic, it is complex to substantiate the matter. Nevertheless, the draft, to shield staff and tendering from undue influence, is being prepared and now almost ready for voting. You do have this information.
I think that the proposal, with the knowledge we have, based on all input and investigation, is the best possible solution currently. One that is part of the total of procedures, rules, frame contract, whistleblowing, …

The status of this ‘policy’ topic then. From the start it has been the goal, and it has been communicated like that, to be an open and fair process. To further that, the following happened:

• phase 1 has been extended several times, last time until October 7;
• an extra opportunity will be added for staff to provide input or give feedback on a first draft;
• the law firm that will support the work, suggested to put extra emphasize on cooperation with the team in writing the draft;
• when there is a draft, we will look at whether the desired use/benefits can also be achieved without a ‘policy’.
  What also happened, is that the people who asked for more time to give input, and have been given that time, haven’t done so far. But again: there will be more opportunities.

@floeff

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.

The handling the tenders is always a team effort of other directors and members of staff and also other volunteers from the community. Directors working for bidding companies always recused themselves from voting and involving in the handling of these tenders.
Now, with the improvements in the procedures, it is even clearer. There is the new ESC Ranking Procedure, the recently accepted Whistleblowing mechanism, the resolution to vote on soon for ‘shielding staff/tendering from undue influence’ and the also soon expected frame contract and procedure for last process phase. A situation that to me looks well, solid and crystal clear.

@floeff

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.

That is not true. It has been explained multiple times, in writing and in spoken word, that it is about the relation between team and board and board and team. When we talk about ‘relations’, of course it has to work in both directions.

Advocating openness and transparency is of course nice, but actually acting accordingly, is clearly more complicated when it affects yourself and your work…

@floeff

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.

I think we should start with trusting that professionals are able to chose the place and ways to communicate that they feel comfortable with, and to do that in a way that does not put them in a difficult position.
It is stated in the boards resolution, from the first drafts, and has been repeated multiple times in writing and in spoken word, most recent the meetings we had in Bucharest: people can provide feedback in various ways, also in private and even anonymous. So I would expect there is no reason for a real problem here?

@floeff

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.

This is your own opinion on what went on, that may be biased though since you are strongly against a ‘policy’.

There are quite some problems in internal relations, due to immature processes and acting. While these are piling up, we just started (efforts around mediation) to help people get away carefully from the stuck positions with old problems. That is not easy and quick, but a promising path and your contributions there are valuable and necessary.

I notice that the board takes its responsibility to work on a policy and is doing so with a process that allows people to engage in any way they prefer.
Also interesting, I think, is that already the process of working on a ‘policy’ can help us to grow understanding of what we can or should do to improve how we work together in our community.

@floeff

In this thread we learned that the board has a law firm working on the policy.

This was known to you already for weeks: since September 14. The team knows it since September 19.

@floeff

The team is on their own.

The team, which is 15 people strong, has already been given quite some opportunity to participate, even if it’s work time. The board, conducting their work as volunteers, has only asked external assistance with the drafting (i.e. converting all the input into a document, with a view on relevant regulations and practices of good corporate governance). A process in which also the team will be involved. I expect all this information should be clear.

@floeff

This does not give any feeling of confidence. It gives a feeling of threat and subordination.

I encourage you to reflect on the facts above, and on how these can be a reason for the feelings you mention. To me it seems this can hardly be the case?

@floeff

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.

I doubt if things started just at that time, and do not share all details of your summary. However, in the meeting with team and MC and board in Bucharest I have reflected on that topic. I stated, and I repeat that here, that I think at least the communication with the team was not good enough. Although it may have been very hard to do it better in that situation. I think it was a collective failure.
This all independent from any judgement on the validity, weak/strong points of the proposal at that time, on which there are various opinions.

@floeff

… 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.

Speaking to people in our community, I’m convinced that the reasons for the current situation are much broader than just that single topic.

@floeff

Of course, the board can vote on any policy they see fit.

You know that we will, as suggested also by the law firm, to involve all people in the community, especially team members, in such a way that the result is something that is widely understood and accepted as useful.

@floeff

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.

I’m excluded from all the internal team communication. But it may be the case that stress from the board and FUD that is being spread is getting too much ground there?
Talking about unbearable: facts are that two directors left the board this term, and that at least one capable director from the previous board didn’t want to stand again.
Nevertheless: I invite team members with concerns, doubts, … to contact me or Thorsten in private to explain, talk… and it is perfectly fine if you want to do that with someone attending who is capable to moderate or facilitate.

@floeff

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.

Again: it has been communicated repeatedly and very clear that this is not the case: feedback can be given in many ways. Let’s please take advantage of the information at hand.

@floeff

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.

It will benefit everyone if we can communicate about this topic well informed, based on facts and try to stay way from reinforcing any conspiracy, fear or negative expectation. We can help each other by communicating opportunities, steps in any positive direction …

@floeff

I will only mention things that I have personally experienced.
…
I will not name the involved people here and I hope this will not be to my disadvantage.

I think we should not judge people on their opinion, but on how they act.

From a perspective of being responsible for good relationships, and a good work atmosphere also in the team, we need to be careful in communicating about examples of what we individually experience, that may create an impression, without people being able to explain other sides etc.
I know various cases with ‘clear nuance’ where people nevertheless make strong public statements while having difficulties to communicate in person. I hope we can together learn and write down, how to act, improve communication, help each other, where to go when things get hard…

@floeff

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.

You know that one of the four top areas that we together (you and board) defined in Bucharest (thanks to the facilitated meetings), was ‘moderation of conflicts’.

All that you write, to me translate in even more good reasons to have a balanced policy, that helps us all understanding better how to get along, how to resolve conflicts, and thus prevent unhealthy stressful situations.

Of course a ‘policy’ is not the single silver bullet that will resolve all our problems magically. Worth noticing therefore, that it are only those who want to paint me or other directors as idiots, that are suggesting as if it would be our idea…

@floeff

People are still here, willing to solve the situation to the benefit of TDF and the full community. Don’t burn these people further.

Given all the above, I wonder if it is reasonable to state that it is the work on a draft policy as such, that is burning people?

@floeff

If that is lacking, no policy in the world can fix that. It can make things only significantly worse.

Let me encourage you to also convert the emotions, negative feelings, that you show extensively, in constructive suggestions. There will be various opportunities to bring these in, during the coming months and make clear what for you are the habits and guidelines to make a healthy environment and to make working positively a reality.

Thanks,
Cor

[cornouws]

Hi Hossein,

@hossein

As an employee, I prefer to focus on the technical stuff and my tasks, and avoid politics. But as it is explicitly requested to give opinions in this matter that affects staff more directly, I try to enumerate some of the points I made during the joint session in LibOCon.

Thanks for your dedication - was really good to see your focus on the workshops in Bucharest!
The feedback asked is primary focused on useful content I think and useful that you repeat what you said in the meeting at our LibOCon yes. We already chatted a bit on one thing you said that I didn’t understand, and it is definitely clearer now.

Again brief: it is not the intention to do as if we have no structure and rules now. Still, there is a huge back log with all sorts of procedures and rules, that the board is working on since only this year. We’ve been too busy with other things, and so far were not able to do the work needed.
With the size of the foundation and it’s work, we are really past the situation of just friends trusting each otherand we need to get to a situation of institutional trust (Uwe’s words - thanks!). That is something one can build alone on power (a word you use) maybe, however an approach that works with clear mutual understanding etc, to me looks like resulting in a much more fertile place for our community

Cheers,
Cor

[cornouws]

@michaelweghorn

As I mentioned earlier, having joined the team only in July, I still sometimes have the impress of lacking some background, but am trying to understand the current situation.

In Dutch we have a saying to express when you enter a situation where you can e.g. immediately start with all things going on at full speed. (‘Met je neus in de boter vallen’/‘falling with your nose in the butter’ - typically Dutch and not at all vegan )

@michaelweghorn

So far, I still don’t have the impression of having received answers that would would help me understand what issues a policy is trying to solve.

I expect my extensive reply to Florian makes it more clear. What are good habits in our different roles; how can we talk (or not talk) with each other on questions, opinions to make sure that e.g. we have a safe environment for all; how do we prevent that grievances get stuck and people are getting unhappy; where can people go when there is a problem to solve; …
But… working together and communication are no exact sciences, I think, so bear with me for imperfections.

@michaelweghorn

As mentioned during the LibOCon meeting, I’d strongly recommend to at least pause the process of this policy and focus on mediation first, which I think would increase the chance of success.

Maybe we should try to understand this process as a (indeed difficult…) phase that we have to get through together. Will stopping solve the problems?
On the positive side, looking at the following three things:
1 - The very work on the draft policy, in which members of the team have various opportunities to engage, is the only way to make clear what can/could/should (maybe) be part of the policy;
2 - we promised in the meeting in Bucharest that, when there is a draft, we will look at whether the desired use/benefits can also be achieved without a ‘policy’.
3 - the positive chances that mediation brings and that most of us do recognize.
… let me suggest that it is maybe the perfect solution to have mediation for #2 above here?

Cheers,
Cor

[cornouws]

Hi Sophie,

@sophi

I fully support what you wrote Florian.

I hope you have some sympathy for at least parts of my reply as well

@sophi

I happened to be pressured for telling what I think, for voicing what could have been done in better ways, expressing what orientations I thought TDF should follow. I’ve been seen as a traitor too because I have my own opinions.

You know that internally we try to get to talk to understand some of the things that happened and are apparently more complicated or nuanced than how one person (with all respect) has experienced it.
Let’s all please work on that and be careful with how we express ourselves in public.

Cheers,
Cor

[cornouws]

Hi Paolo,

@PaoloVecchi

Looking at the email the board received, both you and Thorsten were involved in that call not just you.

A misunderstanding. Thorsten was not involved.

@PaoloVecchi

It’s up to you to chose between a possible “criminal act” as you described it or a non serious way of doing business that would disqualify the supplier even more.

You accuse me of individually committing spending TDF’s money. That would be a criminal offense. And in all your smart talks, the only substance you give is that in the offer, that I bring to the board to look at, the other party states that they consider their offer also to cover for time spent in getting a reasonable understanding of the situation… So?

Cor