Asking your input!

Board Discuss
#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.

#33

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 :slight_smile: 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 :wink:

= = = =

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 :slight_smile:

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 :wink: )

HTH,
Cor

#34

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?

#35

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.

#36

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.

#37

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.

#38

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

#39

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 :slight_smile: 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
#40

Hmm, looks as if I responded a bit edgy there - wondering how that could happen :wink:
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.

#41

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

#42

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?

#43

Hi Florian,

So you seriously think that I would write that and then let you in the cold?
Extending must of course be reasonable. Someone choosing weeks to do other stuff and then leaving for a months vacation, to me is not serious. But I simply don’t expect you will do that.

Then when input is given, we’ll maybe find support in writing a draft, and in (the start of) that work, discussion around various ideas looks appropriate to me.
The planning is written clear; but for good reasons we can shift a bit. It is overdue for years anyhow, so who cares for a few weeks more or less?
There is though some restriction for fair organisational reasons: discussing feedback in later phases is mostly sensible with people that have been engaging earlier. Of course that is not black and white, but if people come late at the show and then reopen whatever discussions, that is not reasonable.

You refer to my post stating at the start “Hope it will inspire others :slight_smile: and let’s see what of it survives, and where, in later phases.”?
If so, then please allow me to take it as a compliment for my ‘unpolished ideas’. :slight_smile:

You’ve seen my replies, interaction, with Matthias and Cornelius?
Can you please tell how many years ago have you been asked to come up with a proposal yourself?

I’ve been told about German laws that say also clear things about the relation of staff-directors. Haven’t looked at it though, since I expect it will be easy enough for members in Germany to bring that info in.

Read the proposal with the various phases for feedback.
Where do you possibly see a problem?

I honestly thought that I had seen your ideas being spelled out by 5, 6, … or more people?

Cheers,
Cor

#44

Hi Florian,

I’ve hinted in various forms on organizing a meeting with board and staff to talk over various issues. But I think not clear enough.
But to me that seems the sensible thing to do. Agreed?

#45

Like others, I’m also not convinced at all that a policy should solve communication problems. And with the sentence quoted above, the decision of having this policy is already voted, so I have nothing to add. Just that I would have appreciate the staff to be engaged in the discussion before the vote, but it’s too late.

#46

Going out with a request for a catch all policy creates more confusion than anything else.
I’ve tried to convince the board to avoid doing that and to start with the board itself as that’s where the issues are but the issues present in the board prevented this from happening.

Unfortunately there isn’t much I can do as whatever I say is not taken in consideration or is used to do exactly the opposite. Then when things go wrong, as warned, I get accused of being on the way of those doing stuff.

#47

I strongly agree with you: please, let’s keep the “political” word out of any policy or process. The term is completely free for interpretation, and I currently hear it mostly used to wave away any discussion in which one is not willing to defend their opinion.

Interesting to describe being contracted by TDF as “a conflict of interest”. What is the adverse effect of such “conflict”? Doing our best for TDF to strive so we stay employed? Can you expand on such risk? I thought we were talking about TDF policy, and therefore the conflicts we are looking to avoid are the ones detrimental to TDF.

But in general, I would be very happy with a policy that makes everyone involved in discussions be transparent in their affiliation(s) during any discussion. I already tend to do that in discussions that involve people who might not be aware of my status. However, I can’t envision any practicality in switching hats between TDF trustee and Staff member every two sentences while debating something (or stacking them on top of each other).

This discussion was initiated on the 18th of July (1:48 pm CEST), which means it should close on the 15th of August (4 weeks total, as in the Decision).
I’d like to formally ask (not sure what the process is) to extend the period for “gathering input”, and shifting the timeline accordingly, by at least 2 weeks. I agree with Florian, I think it is a very inconvenient time of the year, with a combination of LibOCon prep + upcoming major release + leave.

#48

Hi Sophie,

You must have heard parts of the short discussions that Matthias and Cornelius had with me, during the latest AB call, July 21st? In any case, Cornelius also asked me about that:

And apart from that: can you maybe explain what in your idea would work to solve communication problems (the one topic you mention)?
Thanks,
Cor

#49

Hi Stéphane,

As someone who by now is (more or less) used to find a CoI accusations/insinuations around every corner, I’m happy to help you with some possible examples.

  • fighting board decisions in work time;
  • lobbying for a friendly persons project that may not be in the foundations interest;
  • trying to grow your tasks beyond what is useful/necessary to the goals;
  • lobbying for personal convictions in the area of…

And there may be more possible examples. Exceptional, unlikely? You asked for some :wink:
But I’m fully with you, that not every personal interest that you have as member of staff, will be a conflict of interest with the foundation. And interestingly, in many situations this is also the case with commercial entities that contribute to LibreOffice development.
Mind - but you do read well - that I do not say that real conflicts of interest should not be taken seriously.
Finally: maybe there is something to say for the idea, that being paid for working in a project to which also many people contribute voluntarily unpaid, puts one in a position of high moral duty and diligence?

#50

Hi Stéphane,

Correct.

Please allow me to look the next week, but then I’m happy to ask the board for the two weeks, and will add my positive advise to that.
But pls… I think I already (sometimes kindly, sometimes edgy) explained that whining over the term while it appears that a considerable amount of time is spent in speaking/lobbying against the idea… That’s making me really feel tired you know :slightly_smiling_face: So come on: say what you have to say but clear and reasoned pls :whale:

Cheers,
Cor

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