Makes sense indeed Bjoern, thanks 
Moving them to
Cor
I’ll post my ideas here soon.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Did I write three times that there is the possibility to extend the
phase for input if needed? - 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? - 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
@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 
Thanks.
Hi all,
I have some more or less unpolished ideas. Unpolished in the sense that I didn’t think that much on how to put them possibly in a policy, or did not try to find all possible nuances, although those may be important.
Putting my ideas in the basket now. Hope it will inspire others and let’s see what of it survives, and where, in later phases.
Oh, and please breath and if possible: do read to the bottom before letting yourself being distracted by possible impulses
= = = =
General
I’m looking at staff and board from their distinctive roles and their cooperation. For the cooperation understanding the roles and preventing frictions is important. Or if frictions appear, handling these in a respectful and effective way, is important.
On a high level - before looking in more detail: in general (and that is obviously far from unique to the staff-board relation) there are situations in which it is not wise to speak up in public, maybe even in private. E.g. staff publicly disputing or undermining board decisions, is IMO no good. (And obviously that should also apply to directors). And directors publicly criticizing staff’s work, is no good. Staff advising directors on how to vote, is no good. Etc. Then more detailed.
Engaging in discussions
Staff members engaging in discussions in general is appreciated, and definitely not a problem.
I think that is different in certain phases around topics that are clearly political, for example a fundamental choice about the foundations policy/direction, in the phases that the board is about to take, or did take a decision.
In case of a new situation (that may also be a topic with a standing decision, where a new situation arises) engaging in discussions looks fine to me. I think is is fine to if a member of staff suggest that it might be appropriate to look at topic again, when there is a new situation.
But when a decision stands, it is IMO not appropriate if members of staff debate that (and obviously that should also apply to directors).
So in general engaging in discussion: please, but not in some situation and in some ways. E.g. when there is a discussion on fundamentals of TDF: please join. When there is a discussion around a board topic: please stay way from supporting/repeating negative framing about the board or members of the board.
Is that always easy to understand, do ‘the right’(…) thing?
No, so IMO it is good if the staff-board-policy gives tools/suggestions that people can use. E.g. ‘discuss this with the ED or a colleague first to find out what is best to do. Maybe there are other in this case better ways to express your opinion.’
In general you can say that members of staff should avoid choosing a position or communication in a way that they support either side in a situation of political/personal sensitive situation.
And that implies that directors have to behave sane, and do not try to drag team members in these discussion. (edit 2023-08-01; 11:54 CEST)
Obviously the other way round that works as well - though these situations are I think far more unlikely: if there are visible conflicts in the team, directors should be very careful in communication.
And if there is a role for the board, directors should walk a careful and respectful path towards all people involved, to work on/help with resolving the situation.
Conflict resolving
I think we need both committees and some simple protocols on how to act in case of conflicts, frictions.
The goal should IMO be to handle these at the lowest possible level: give ideas, tools for people to talk and resolve the situation to an acceptable state.
But it may be needed that people get help from someone else. That can be an internal committee/person/position. And in some cases external mediating will be mandated.
IMO we should not want to let it happen that situations end in a state where frustration basically are swallowed by individuals ‘so that they can live with it’, but at the very moment that something happens that triggers the unresolved conflicts, the old emotions pop up. Because if that happens, first it influences the interaction/work in the here and now and not less important: it does not make people happy in their work.
And imagine that it happens that an opinion is expressed by a member of staff in a way that (a) director(s) feel unhappy, or think it is inappropriate. Or the other way round.
It is needed that we know what is the right place and setting (extra people?) to express that, how it is expected to happen, so that it helps us to a growing a culture of understanding and respect.
And with that, you are looking in the direction of conflict prevention. Maybe it is possible to use the moments where board and team meet, more consciously to support the process.
Personal skills
It’s obvious that in our community, with an interesting and huge variety of people, experiences, characters, culture, situation, languages, skills, … there are (extra) challenges in understanding, preventing frictions, talking respectful and listening open.
It is vital therefor that the foundation has say a basic program for at least directors and staff to support them, and can offer additional training and coaching etc.
Growing a culture where this is more or less understood, makes it easier to also look at the process (meta-communication) together without the need of completely structured, staff-roled process
Something with the combination, interaction, of protocols, rules, suggestions, learning, culture…
Please do ask if anything is not clear (must be inevitable with that many words )
HTH,
Cor
I thought this thread would tackle the friction that resulted from the meeting to discredit staff, too. Something along the lines on how to rebuild trust. Could you please elaborate on what issues the new policy is supposed to solve, Cor?
I agree that the policy, tools it offers, things we learn with that, must also help with rebuilding trust.
I hope you can see enough elements, details, in my post that help with that.
Anything that misses in your opinion?
Then: there has been no meeting ‘to discredit staff’. That framing and impression has been built for political reasons. Or maybe it was a coincidence because of insufficient skilled communication, who knows. Then, it did create friction. I repeat that the way to go to resolve that, is organizing a meeting (or multiple) around the matter, have that consciously prepared etc.
I will continue this on the internal channels board and staff have to communicate.
Unfortunately, and as expected, the primary focus of the policy is actually to find a way to limit the freedom of expression of members of staff that are also members of the board of trustees.
Somebody has been bothered by it since early 2020, to the point of organising an off the record meeting to “educate” new directors, and it’s since then the proposal to find ways to limit what members of staff could say about board proposals and decisions has been promoted a few times by members of the board affiliated with bidders.
That naturally does not play well with the right of members of the board of trustees to express their opinions and with the “staff protection” mechanism that the A-Team/shadow board decided not to vote for:
It would have been a good sign if the first idea that came up was to implement from the board side the agreement we had at LibOCon in Milan where directors would have expressed their opinions about members of staff work or comments only through our ED but by FOSDEM this year it was clear it wasn’t working, 2 directors went back to the old habit of expressing how displeased they were directly with members of staff which didn’t take director’s pushy approach very well.
So, once again, it seems like the priorities aren’t to actually avoid frictions with members of staff by avoiding that directors put pressure on them to change their opinion or stay silent.
It is not. Your skills to read and actually understand seem much less evolved then your framing skills. That is distracting and is costing the other directors tons of energy, while they nevertheless work on improving stuff, getting things done. The number of cases showing that is growing steadily.
Hi @cornouws ,
a few, hopefully constructive comments on your draft.
I feel that might be quite tricky, as the personal is the political. Esp. for staff it is really hard to separate the two and as such likely tricky to agree on its implementation or enforcement.
But I think that might be also an opportunity for transparency: When staff is involved in broader discussions, it would be good for them to consciously decide to argue as either a trustee (or more general: as an contributor) or as an member of TDF staff and explicitly stating so. And also state their conflicts of interest (which quickly happen when the foundation is your main source of income) from either role when relevant to the discussion.
And when arguing in the role of a member of staff, it should be considered if a public response is adequate – because in that role, that is not the natural feedback loop. That is especially true, if the response relies on or infers from privileged (non-public) information.
Hmm, I find it hard to imagine how an open conflict needs a policy for resolution: If there is a position by the board of directors as an entity (not as individuals) that a member of staff or an individual members of the board does not share, they still need to “disagree and commit” in their work time and when using any of the privileges or inside knowledge of their role.
Beyond that, both groups retain opportunities as other trustees, but even for those there are limits after which personal crusades become destructive – especially when lobbying for the use of a relevant amount of the foundations resources. OTOH personal contribution (e.g. work in the project on your own time) should almost always be possible as long as it is not directly threatening the foundations objectives as interpreted by the board of directors as an entity.
I dont know if the above needs a “policy” – but for a start, it might be a good guideline.
Best Regards,
Bjoern
Hi @Sweetshark,
Interesting to read your thoughts. Thanks.
Good to consider that. Have some thoughts, but no strong opinion.
So let me promise to get back to this later.
Ah What my text refers to, is not a conflict about a vote/decision, but a personal conflict that appeared somehow.
Still good to consider your comments.
Cheers,
Cor
1 Like
Hmm, looks as if I responded a bit edgy there - wondering how that could happen
Factual, wrt my ‘No it is not’: let me point to some parts that clarify that:
’ … staff and board from their distinctive roles and their cooperation, … understanding the roles and preventing frictions is important’
’ … directors publicly criticizing staff’s work, is no good’
’ … we should not want … frustration basically are swallowed by individuals’
’ … influences the interaction/work … does not make people happy in their work’
’ … looking in the direction of conflict prevention.’
So I hope that makes it understandable, that this is to support good and respectful relations, and that both board and staff need to be considerate for that. With as sole goal supporting the work, establishing and maintaining a good working environment, and an overall positive atmosphere in TDF and the community.
Hello Cor,
Who decides that and when? The risk is to not be able to give feedback, and then see the phase for input not extended. Will you extend the deadline if any contributor, including team members, asks so? That’s even more relevant now that a full text is at the table and I wonder if anything that is not working with this directly now will be factored in anymore.
I prefer to rush things not true, which is also along the lines of what two members of our Advisory Board have criticized. Apart from that, it is yet unclear to me where to discuss the legal topics and events that are connected to this topic. I think the community, who is asked for feedback, should be put in a position to give feedback with the necessary background information.
I would like my ideas to be heard, just like yours and others.
Thanks,
Florian
So, are you saying that the numerous directors, the majority of the board during whose term this took place, who confirmed that meeting in words much stronger than “discredit staff”, that they all do this for political reasons?