Asking your input!

[floeff]

@cornouws

Then: there has been no meeting ‘to discredit staff’. That framing and impression has been built for political reasons.

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?

[cornouws]

Hi Florian,

@floeff

Hello Cor,

@cornouws

Did I write three times that there is the possibility to extend the
phase for input if needed?

Who decides that and when?

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.

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.

You refer to my post stating at the start “Hope it will inspire others 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’.

I prefer to rush things not true, which is also along the lines of what two members of our Advisory Board have criticized.

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?

Apart from that, it is yet unclear to me where to discuss the legal topics and events that are connected to this topic.

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.

I think the community, who is asked for feedback, should be put in a position to give feedback with the necessary background information.

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

I would like my ideas to be heard, just like yours and others.

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

Cheers,
Cor

[cornouws]

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?

[sophi]

@cornouws

But when a decision stands, it is IMO not appropriate if members of staff debate that

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.

[PaoloVecchi]

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.

[stragu]

@Sweetshark

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.

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.

@Sweetshark

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.

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).

@cornouws

Did I write three times that there is the possibility to extend the
phase for input if needed?

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.

[cornouws]

Hi Sophie,

@sophi

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.

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:

• could turn out there’s no need for such a policy, but better ways to accommodate the needs

"I don’t consider that at all impossible. However, I expect that is fully depending on a clear, open process with full support, honest engagement, of all involved.

So consider this to be an invitation "

@sophi

Just that I would have appreciate the staff to be engaged in the discussion before the vote, but it’s too late.

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

[cornouws]

Hi Stéphane,

@stragu

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.

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
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?

[cornouws]

Hi Stéphane,

@stragu

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).

Correct.

@stragu

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.

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 So come on: say what you have to say but clear and reasoned pls

Cheers,
Cor

[guilhem]

@sophi

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.

Fully agreed.

@cornouws

• could turn out there’s no need for such a policy, but better ways to accommodate the needs

There is on the one’s hand the prose one can write, and on the other hand how it might come across and be perceived by others. And it does feel to me that the various “sides” have made up their mind long before the decision, and that this thread is more about asking for validation for a fait accompli than a genuine interest in input from the community.

Moreover, the first message of this topic reads “During this first stage, every proposal will be considered and fully respected”, but judging how dissected and challenged posts have been in practice, this venue doesn’t feel like a safe space to express disagreement or minority opinions.

[cornouws]

Hi Guilhem,

@guilhem

but judging how dissected and challenged posts have been in practice, this venue doesn’t feel like a safe space to express disagreement or minority opinions.

Sorry to read that.
You know I’m from the Netherlands and prolly not always using the most polished English either.
And I know that I’ve been rather outspoken in case of ‘I don’t like it’-type of answers. But I may have missed something, misunderstood?
Can you please help me and show examples where - if it is about me - a response to ideas (about what and how, or what not and why, to add to the work) is dissecting and challenging?
I guess if I would have responded to ‘I don’t like it’-type of post with “I do like it” that is not respectful either? What would be your advise, please?

Thanks,
Cor

[stragu]

@stragu

@Sweetshark

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.

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.

I think I misread that part, sorry about that. I understand now Bjoern doesn’t mean that being a staff member is in itself a CoI when participating in TDF discussions. But that external links that can constitute a CoI (or be perceived as such) should be declared.
Is that right, Bjoern?

[jucasaca]

This whole process starts in a vague way:

• “there are thoughts about” who has those thoughts?
• “there are undeniably issues and tensions in the community” what tensions? in which community? why is it mentioned now?
• “it is needed work on a result that really benefits the community and TDF” always! but, in particular, why mention it now?
• “Decides: to start a carefully crafted process to that end” but, has it been approved to create a policy or just start a process, and depending on the result and the general opinion, create the policy?

I get the impression that what is intended is to create a policy of the directors for the directors, without taking into account the staff, and that this whole process has been initiated to justify the need to create that policy and to justify each and every one of the points that you decide to add to the policy, there will always be someone who has mentioned what you decide, and you can say so and so said this, even if there are hundreds who have said the opposite.

From what is being seen in the posts there are many people who do not see the need to create this policy, are you going to retract and reverse the decision to create the policy? (if that decision has been taken, which is not clear to me)

[ilmari]

@cornouws

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).

This seems tailor-made to prevent something I did in 2020 from happening again. The board had decided in 2019 that a business entity would be established in the UK and TDF would give it a loan. I questioned the decision on board-discuss and continued the discussion on private lists. As many remember, it turned out a separate business entity was not needed to achieve the things it was supposed to unlock.

Edit: important to note here is that there was no discussion outside the board before the decision was published, so there was no possibility to comment beforehand.

It would be a really miserable outcome to have such a one-sided policy put in place to limit free speech. It would corrupt what it means to be a TDF member. As I mentioned in a similar topic on a private list a couple of months ago, if wearing two hats is seen as a problem, a fair solution would be to simply exclude both TDF staff and ecosystem company employees from being TDF members.

[Sweetshark]

Hi @stragu,

@stragu

Is that right, Bjoern?

Yes, I’d just like staff to consider if they argue like any other trustee would or if being a member of staff might influence their opinion. If in doubt, leave that to the reader by making explicit that your staff membership might color your argument.

I mean “conflict of interest” also in the colloquial sense, rather than in a formal one: There is no overlap between staff and board, which is good, and decisions are ultimately made by the board.

I’d also like members of the board and staff to restrain themselves from reopening discussions once there is a decision by the board as representing the will of the majority of trustees. The way to challenge decision is to build different majorities after an upcoming election and disagree and commit until then(*).

Best Regards,

Bjoern

(*) The exception to that is communication between board members in private. Having to endure persistent private lobbying even after a decision is made is one of the duties of board members. Still doesnt mean board members owe a reply to every suggestion.

[cornouws]

Hi Ilmari,

@ilmari

This seems tailor-made to prevent something I did in 2020 from happening again.

Thanks for bringing this example. I appreciate that. Honestly - since I think that talking about issues is better then not and then e.g. grumble silently.
The term ‘tailor-made’ you use, can have a negative annotation, I think. I’m not sure if that is your intention, but in any case I hope that - in some time - we can both say that it is fair to interpret it as “This seems to match well with this specific example”.

The board had decided in 2019 that a business entity would be established in the UK and TDF would give it a loan. I questioned the decision on board-discuss and continued the discussion on private lists. As many remember, it turned out a separate business entity was not needed to achieve the things it was supposed to unlock.

From what I remember, yes. Then also that things it was meant to solve, really are not all solved yet, that it seemed a reasonable/good solution, and maybe not the best.
So for me, a far from black and white picture. But a very relevant, useful example.

So yes, I support looking at the example, and what the influence of certain parts of a policy could have been on the process, but I am not (not yet maybe?) convinced that the following conclusion you draw, is justified.

It would be a really miserable outcome to have such a one-sided policy put in place to limit free speech.

Can you (& others) join me in looking at some questions before drawing that conclusion?

• Have the possibilities to engage in the process before the decision, not (effectively) used?
• Or were they not enough / was maybe the decision making not open enough for vital feedback?
• Our statues offer the possibility to contest decisions; isn’t that enough?
• Wouldn’t what I write in my suggestions (see next) be enough to help in such a situation, or is more needed?

@cornouws

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.

• Would it be good to have another mechanism for staff to speak up in some cases?
• Would possibly improving overall board-staff communication (always time consuming, formalities or honest engaging… - to drop some notes ) …
• …

@ilmari

It would corrupt what it means to be a TDF member. As I mentioned in a similar topic on a private list a couple of months ago, if wearing two hats is seen as a problem, a fair solution would be to simply exclude both TDF staff and ecosystem company employees from being TDF members.

Different discussion I think. But staff is paid to do what the board decides, and the board is elected to represent the will of the trustees, and that people working for ecosystem companies can be member, is a vital element for a meritocratic organization.

Back to the relevant discussion. Can you imagine Ilmari, that there is maybe reason to have some care in to what extend staff can fight decisions from the board?
Imagine there is a decision and for whatever reason 5 people don’t like it and refuse to execute, but the decision stands and holds… just find another job, split the community, …? None of which I’m looking forward to. But looking at the far edges of the possible scenario’s is to me helpful to at least support thinking.

Looking forward to your thoughts,
Cor

[cornouws]

Hi Juan,

@jucasaca

This whole process starts in a vague way:

Have you been looking at some posts below the announcing topic?
Here and further down
IMO your questions have been covered there somehow already.
And please let us know if anything misses.
Thanks,
Cor

[jucasaca]

Yes that was answered:
“A clear yes: clarifying what you ask in the three questions is possible. However the wording is quite vague on purpose”
It is said that it can be answered, but the answer is that nothing is clarified on purpose.

In any case, actually, they were not questions that I expected to be answered, those questions were to show that as you say “the wording is quite vague on purpose” and that what is really intended is

• To create a policy of the directors for the directors.
• That this is a parody in order to justify the decisions to be taken

And I think that splitting messages from one thread to another and from the other to the first is also, as you see, a way to confuse and bore people.

[Telesto]

@cornouws

@ilmari

It would be a really miserable outcome to have such a one-sided policy put in place to limit free speech. It would corrupt what it means to be a TDF member. As I mentioned in a similar topic on a private list a couple of months ago, if wearing two hats is seen as a problem, a fair solution would be to simply exclude both TDF staff and ecosystem company employees from being TDF members.

Different discussion I think. But staff is paid to do what the board decides, and the board is elected to represent the will of the trustees, and that people working for ecosystem companies can be member, is a vital element for a meritocratic organization.

The proposal of Ilmari is bit blunt, but quite effective to prevent conflict of interest/ having multiple hats on. However a big part of the contributions is coming from eco-system partners. And input from eco-system partners can surely be an advantage.

The interest of TDF don’t necessary align with eco-system partners vision, at subtle or more obvious level. You can’t be neutral when being an employee or director of an eco-system partner and being on the board of TDF. A director of a (eco-system partner) company X who actually is neutral in a vote which strategically relevant for his enterprise, wouldn’t - theoretically - fulfill his task properly in relation to his commitment to is duties as director of company X.

Another idea would be allowing the eco-system partner a seats with the eco-system partner hat on, without pretention of being neutral/impartial. The interest of the TDF would be ensured by distributing the majority. Say three members of the board being unaffiliated (ideally also holding the position of the chair), and two representing the eco-system partner. With some cooling off period for people who where affiliate with eco-system partner and want to be voted onto the board as unaffiliated. This also would ensure that eco-system partners board members can speak freely.

[Sweetshark]

Hi @Telesto,

@Telesto

The interest of TDF don’t necessary align with eco-system partners vision

Note this is not only true for “eco-system partners” (which is commonly used for companies contributing to LibreOffice), but also for other employers, entities and enterprises of community members, namely those that are users of LibreOffice themselves. And with companies or entities that use and benefit from LibreOffice – be that by providing hosting, related services (e.g. trainings), or running big deployments or something else – the risk for conflicts of interest are much higher than for “eco-system partners”, because the latter are at least actively contributing to the project (which is one of the main goals of TDF and one of the hardest to grow on).

So any suggestion for additional redtape should first consider those employers before maybe going after “eco-system partners”.

Best Regards,

Bjoern