Dear community,
let me add a few general remarks to this discussion. Below, I’ll also
answer to a few of the previous posts.
For the background, it is perhaps illustrative to outline, how TDF is
currently run, operationally:
The foundation currently has a team of 15 people, some of them
employees, some of them contractors, and some working for small
companies, but with a large fraction of their time dedicated to
TDF. The team is led by Florian, and since many years, he’s managing
the staff at arms length from the board.
That means, usually directors would not direct staff members
themselves, nor evaluate/manage them. To help with that, staff has
private chats, discussion forums, and meetings, for which no board
member has access nor insight into. Team reviews, salary negotiations,
benefits & raises are also handled by Florian, and then brought back
to the board for discussion and (usually) approval.
So from a director’s perspective, the day-to-day work of the team is
already pretty well-separated from us - and in fact the experience is
not too different from a service provider, tasked with managing the
foundation, and the many functions needed to serve our
community. Sure, we know each other well, sometimes for 20+ years, we
value each other & our work, and we collaborate as community members
on LibreOffice in our respective volunteer [1] roles - but that’s the
same for the staff of many of the other companies TDF is contracting
(e.g. for tendered core improvements).
There are a few differences between staff at TDF and staff at
contributing ecosystem companies. One is that for some ecosystem
companies (like in my case), there are representatives on the board
(which is not currently the case for staff members - though there was
a brief period in 2012 and 2013, when Florian served in a dual
role). We’re currently checking with counsel, if, and under which
conditions, this might be possible.
Another difference is the level of scrutiny conflicts of interests are
getting - though arguably the team has got allocated by far the
largest proportion of all TDF income, and is able to exert quite some
pressure on board members (see this, and other discussions in the
past) - there’s been very little concerns about interests so far. In
any case only the board and the MC have a CoI policy enacted for
themselves.
The above setup itself is worth writing down as policy (or if you
prefer it, call it ‘documenting best practices’, such that future
boards can have guidance on how things are setup) - unless we come to
the conclusion that too much separation is bad for e.g. re-building
trust, see below. At any rate, adherence to community norms (on either
side, board and staff) like CoC and CoI policies would be good to have
in there, too.
In addition, I would personally like to see addressed the structural
disadvantage a volunteer board finds itself in, when dealing with a
large group of people (with a lot of paid time at their hands), who
can campaign in public & with their TDF trustee hat on. This never
happened, but conceivably those campaigns could be for more staff
budget, additional hires, more perks etc - all directly or indirectly
benefiting the group.
And lastly, TDF has by now noticeable execution problems. Some of them
are clearly located at a divided board, some of them are massive,
unresolved & unmoderated interpersonal conflicts (across the entire
community). But some of them are due to the black box, that the team
currently represents for the board, where some things simply don’t
seem to happen (or things happen that really shouldn’t). Attempts to
inquire, or go directly to individual team members, are then often
perceived as attacks or harassments. That is clearly not intended, but
any improvement here requires to give directors confidence, that their
decisions will be executed timely, even if they don’t chase people
personally.
Now, for the individual statements & my responses:
I am really surprised to see this topic pushed so much. The public vote on protection of employees has not progressed so far yet.
That seems inaccurate by now. The vote for the staff protection has
started, while no vote for any policy here did happen (besides the
help for coming up with a first draft).
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 most things are public at TDF is a side effect of the setup we
chose. I’m with you that sometimes, public debates are making our life
harder. In this particular case though, it was explicitly mentioned
that private feedback is possible - so why didn’t you use that avenue?
From what I remember, things started to turn bad about three and a
half years ago.
No. In another conversation, you mentioned the board term 2014-2016 as
the time when things went bad. I can’t put a finger on a date, but I’d
probably agree with Cor, that there’s many different things at play
here, over quite a long period of time.
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.
It is disappointing to see you bringing this example, after I said
repeatedly, that at least I would consider the private TDC feedback
within policy (for any possible policy that I can imagine).
The subsequent interactions with team members then might be positively
influenced by any putative policy (which is supposed to cover
behaviour on all sides, including the board)? But hard to tell in this
case, since I was IIRC not involved, and it’s quite a while ago.
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.
I’m frankly baffled to read that people are apparently developing
health issues due to the situation, and their manager still pushes
against – at the moment merely looking at options for – a policy,
which would, as stated, also regulate behaviour on the board side.
I feel the need to state, that TDF staff management, and downstream of
that the board, should consider a more proactive approach to get
people out of harms way (and/or support them appropriately in their
individual situations. Which might involve challenging perception
issues).
What happens here, pushing through a policy, will be just
detrimental for everyone.
I don’t see anybody pushing through a policy. But I see a lot of
pent-up grief, and unresolved conflict, plus quite some FUD around
something that is not even available as a draft.
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.
Please be assured that we hear your concerns, and I was very sad when
I heard how this is all affecting you. The fear and panic that a
policy is creating, which does not even exist in draft form, that is
though incomprehensible to me. Finally, that you believe the only
wrong behaviour is at the board level, is neither true, nor helpful
for making progress in healing relationships.
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.
I fully endorse this approach. And it is actually what is attempted
here.
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.
On that, please notice that the only people framing this process as
‘fait accompli, forcing down something that has been decided already’
are those in violent opposition.
Perhaps you are not aware, that this is a straw man
argument. Otherwise, it is great & considered input you’re providing,
thanks for that!
So let’s be careful with the FUD here, since that is often very
‘helpful’ when attempting to rally troops & build momentum.
[1] I like the volunteer definition from other communities in this
context - where a volunteer is defined as someone whose work you
cannot direct. This person might still get paid to do the work,
but it is not under your control. So what is volunteered is the
input to the community (and similar mechanisms as for true
charitable work apply - i.e. it is hard to gain people, and easy
to lose them)
Cheers,
– Thorsten
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.