Asking your input!

Board Discuss
#12

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

#13

Hi Paolo,

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

#14

Hi @ilmari @htietze,

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

Best Regards,

Bjoern

#15

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.

#16

Hi @htietze,

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.

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

#17

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Ideas around TDF’s future

#18

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

#19

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.

#21

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.

1 Like
#22

I instinctively agree with jbfaure and telesto - there’s this adage that adding more rules and regulations simply increase the attack surface for those with the time & the skills.

On the other hand, having some of the implicit community norms & best practices written down, avoids having to re-negotiate the law of the land, every time the wind (or the board) changes. So overall, and given the current situation (which, for board/staff relations, is ongoing since quite a few years), I would assume a written policy should improve the status quo.

As an aside, it is interesting in its own right, to observe the various positions here (some of them of the kind 'I want a policy over here, but really not over there).

Best, Thorsten

Ideas around TDF's future
Ideas around TDF's future
#23

Makes sense indeed Bjoern, thanks :wink:
Moving them to

Cor

#24

I’ll post my ideas here soon.

#25

Hello,

we have a policy discussed that could significantly affect staff:

  • while we are in the relevant phase of getting budgeting and tendering finalized

  • and tenders were not restarted since May 2022

  • while there is no budet approved as of today, which is one of the things we need for the above to happen

  • during vacation time

  • when in parallel our annual conference is organized

  • and when such a policy is disadvised by representatives of two major FLOSS groups (FSFE and KDE)

These are some reasons why I consider at least the timing of this to be really bad. There were four weeks of feedback planned for a policy that severely could affect staff, and these four weeks fall exactly into a very demanding time. Given how the process is setup, it means that primarily, if not only, the ideas shared now will be factored in - otherwise we could have the discussion phase at a later stage.

Florian

#26

Florian:
we have a policy discussed that could significantly affect staff

There seems to be some confusion. Sorry for that.
The board did not propose to discuss a policy now.
We now ask ideas from all people about what they think could be good to have in or not; just simply leave your ideas in the basket so that they are part of the full process.
Then there is two months planned to prepare a proposal - and really I expect external expertise to be useful there.
Then there is two weeks planned to gather feedback.
etc.

I think I mentioned - but if not I do it now - if needed we can take a bit more time for gathering ideas.

Florian:

  • and when such a policy is disadvised by representatives of two major FLOSS groups (FSFE and KDE)

I’ve reflected extensively on their input and tried to appreciate the relevance in and useful parts for our process and to be written policy.

#27

Essentially we disagree who the staff is working for.

I think that’s close to right, Heiko, but the extent needs clarifying and focussing. I don’t think there is any doubt who the staff works for; the staff works for TDF. Neither is there any doubt under whose authority the staff are retained and their work evaluated and compensated; it is under the authority of the Board.

The question is more about how that authority is delegated. At the inception of TDF the staffing was to assist the Board which was a “doing” Board, and staffing was managed by directors. As time has progressed, the staff has grown and evolved to the point where management by the Board is neither feasible or healthy. But because the change has been gradual there’s no clarity about how this should work, so people make assumptions (of varying validity).

The reality is that TDF now has an executive staff and a supervisory Board, but clear processes to manage that have not been instituted and there are a few patterns of behaviour by both Board and staff that are not appropriate for this reality, alongside excellent work and commitment from everyone.

So what we probably ought to be doing here is agreeing that reality exists and devising policies and procedures to make sure those antipatterns are addressed.

#28

A post was merged into an existing topic: Ideas around TDF’s future

#29

A post was merged into an existing topic: Ideas around TDF’s future

#30

As said earlier on: Given how the process is setup, it means that primarily, if not only, the ideas shared now will be factored in - otherwise we could have the discussion phase at a later stage. And as explained, the timing for collecting ideas is really bad.

#31

Hi Florian,

[floeff] floeff https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/floeff

As said earlier on: Given how the process is setup, it means that
primarily, if not only, the ideas shared now will be factored in -
otherwise we could have the discussion phase at a later stage. And as
explained, the timing for collecting ideas is really bad.

Sorry.

  1. Did I write three times that there is the possibility to extend the
    phase for input if needed?
  2. And honestly, guessing the amount of time that you are spending on
    pushing back… how much content-related input would you have been able
    to provide in that time?
  3. And are you sure that your ideas are so unique, that those will be
    uncovered in the case that you do not give input?
    If so, pls go back to 2.

Cheers,
Cor

#32

@htietze @webmink may I suggest that this is enough discussion on a topic (“who the staff is working for”) that is related to, but not actually input for the process?
Feel free to continue somewhere else of course.
And if you heavily disagree with my suggestion, pls explain :slight_smile:
Thanks.

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