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.
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”.
If you like to get feedback from the people, I suggest to postpone this 4 week period to at least after the LibOCon is finished.
Right now, for LibOCon I myself have several action items to complete, and around 5 presentations in hand for the LibreOffice conference and various sessions of the student workshop, which also need a lot of preparation in addition to the presentations. I am sure other staff, and many other people who participate in the LibOCon have many things to do before the conference.
Bjoern calls it “going after” people, but whatever its implications would be, I would appreciate if this is postponed to some time after LibOCon, so that the conference and its workshop can be held smoothly.
it’s interesting to see that also from outside the board there are people that are getting the same feelings about this proposed policy.
When Cor started the vote, despite objections, I stated:
"…the input gathered included also 2 directors stating that it would be much better to avoid trying to go out with a catch all vote and instead focus on smaller targeted votes and processes, that doesn’t seem to have been taken in consideration.
The vote [contains] also misleading statements and focuses on a staff policy that has been promoted only by directors affiliated with companies of the ecosystem which disliked receiving uncomfortable questions on matters in which they were/are clearly in CoI.
During last term no other directors thought it was a good idea to come up with that policy, during this term an attempt to reopen that discussion has been pushed back at FOSDEM and now it came back again to create more distractions and surely discussions at a time where directors should be focusing on other issues which have been ignored or actively dismissed for months.
If you really think it’s a good idea to do that then just publish the proposal on board discuss first and see what kind of reactions it will get."
Unfortunately the majority of the board sent their +1 without even discussing the merits of the proposal as usual.
That’s likely to follow the same path of Cor’s alternative take on the Developers Proposal that received only negative comments by trustees but got voted in regardless.
Maybe some good things will come out of this catch all policy but as already stated it will put me in a position where I’ll have to vote on something that will contain also clauses that censor our members of staff.
If “the board” really wanted to do something good for our members of staff then they could have participated to the following votes:
Once again some board members didn’t perform their basic duty of voting for proposals that are the result of clear legal advice to have a valid budget. These would have helped by putting in place measures that protect our staff from undue influence as it happened too often especially since TDF’s staff questioning helped in making new board members aware of the issues present in the decision voted back in 2019.
I would think that another useful policy would be to have a senior representative of the members in the board to help the board with feedback coming from the team which is in daily contact with the many communities around the world and with the day to day operations. That would help a lot in avoiding making some mistakes.
Given urgent pending tasks at least on my desk the board is aware of, vacation planning and upcoming LibOCon that will also take time from several of us - I do support this request.
Hi Florian, Hossein, *,
There’s already been written quite a bit about the process and ‘nuances’ around the idea of shifting.
Given the feedback, I expect it is easier and more effective that the board makes absolutely sure, to talk with team members at least when there is a first draft. It will then be more natural to give feedback and input.
The plan obviously already works with feedback in various phases/ways, but it is definitely good to state that we will reach out to the team explicitly and separately! Will talk a bit more in detail with the team.
HTH,
Cor
I’m also not finding it very ethical to go out with a proposal including all sort of things which will force me to vote on items that I don’t find beneficial for TDF and the members of staff while instead I would be willing to vote on others.
The wisest move, IMHO, would be to revoke the vote and go out with separate proposals for each item that some board members have already in mind and allow members of staff to make their own proposals as well.
You said you will not let us in the cold when we ask for an extension.
Me and others explained why the timing is too short and in a bad time of the year, and you had more feedback internally why it’s not a good time.
So, I’d like to take you by you word, ask to not let us in the cold, and give the extension of the deadline as asked.
Apart from that, the vast majority of feedback received is negative towards a policy, including feedback from our very own Advisory Board. An AB member, as quoted here, said it will require a lot of work and require a lot of time also from my end, so I hope my request to ask for an extension is even more sensible now.
I see it as my role as director here, to bridge rationale and emotional.
There is quite some posts where I read or understand that people do not like a policy. Then my conclusion is: there must be things that these people do not want to see in a policy. But what is that?
So the emotion is “I don’t want that” - emotions are important. The rationale is: 'Why, what do we have to learn out of that" - understanding also is important.
So I’ve been constantly encouraging you and other people to explain. Mind that it is not without reason, that the boards decision suggests various ways to make ideas known, including anonymous.
I’ve appreciated that Ilmari replies with a clear example from the past, showing what he does not want to happen. A valid one to look at, I think. I’ve reflected on his view and defined some questions to look at, to really understand what that example can/could/should mean for the topic at hand. So far no response. Maybe it is too complicated to look at those in this setting? Anyhow, I will not forget the example and questions, because I do care.
So various people are happy with the idea, but there is no explanation to take advantage of. The logic thing is then to make extra efforts to look at a draft with members of staff; that will make it much easier to give factual feedback from which we will all benefit. This is in my post here .
Then:
Correct. And on the internal matrix channel I also wrote “Is it strange though, that if I would expect, that the ones with clear ideas would be able to find some 30-60 minutes in the next 2 weeks to write that down?” (sorry for my sometimes complex constructions. Combined with my not so perfect English, that may not always be easy to understand.)
So that is already one week more than planned. OK?
Again, I feel strongly that a separate and explicit opportunity for the staff to reflect on a draft, is way more useful than shifting more and again a bit more. If it is hard to find words now - apparently - that will be just as hard in 4 or 8 weeks. Then there will also be lots of other work to do…
The setting/situation will be helping you much more to give feedback than a few weeks extra.
I think it is only natural, that often it is easier to give feedback, when looking at some text in stead of at some empty paper.
Do think a moment about what in fact the consequences for staff are, if we do that
Still, OTOH I see no reason to be too stressed on the term for the first phase either, so we can look at shifting another week, why not. That would then be 22 days from now.
I found the feedback from the AB critical and constructive; appreciated and the chat we had was useful.
Acting on negative feedback in the “I don’t want this” -form is impossible for me. It is the boards responsibility to support good relations, have a proper governance framework in place etc.
No, there were no possibilities to engage in the process as the decision about TDC was taken in private. I also remember over the years some board members objecting to the idea of having more open processes, so this practice of arbitrarily making even highly impactful decisions in private seems likely to continue.
About contesting decisions, TDF statutes say complaints must be submitted by at least 30% of the Board of Trustees members. The discussion here is about the ability of individual trustees to make comments, so it’s not a fitting comparison. The main mystery in your proposal remains: why is it needed to selectively limit the free speech of trustees?
What is the need for another mechanism for this group of trustees to speak?
No, it is the essential discussion here. You see us wearing two hats to be a problem for some reason (not explaining properly, just “IMO no good/not appropriate”) and you want to limit our free speech. Why would your “IMO” carry any weight here while you are also wearing two hats and are apparently not open to the idea of equal restrictions for being a trustee?
You want to reposition TDF to favour trustees who are ecosystem employees and this deserves to be be stated clearly when communicating it. Will you commit to this clarity of communication going forward?
Now you are starting a new discussion about TDF staff hypothetically going on strike. This is diverging too far from the main discussion, so I will not comment on it.
As a TDF staff member for seven years, active in the marketing project and in community outreach, these areas you describe as potential “conflict of interest for staff” worry me. For instance:
lobbying for a friendly persons project that may not be in the foundations interest;
I’ve been working with the Thunderbird community on cross-promotion recently. What if the Board then decides that it’s my “friendly persons project” and I get charged with a “conflict of interest”?
trying to grow your tasks beyond what is useful/necessary to the goals;
Team members do the daily work in the project and with the community, and know what the community wants. This sounds like we need to check every task with the Board to see if it’s “necessary for the goals”, to avoid getting in “conflict of interest”.
Ultimately, I feel like a “staff policy” that some Board members are in favour of will make it much harder for TDF’s staff to do their daily work, be creative and try new things. Many of us will avoid doing imaginative things to avoid potential “conflicts of interest” coming up, or stepping on the toes of the ecosystem members.
I joined TDF in 2016 to be part of an independent, non-profit organisation focused on growing a community (including the ecosystem, which I’ve promoted a lot). Today, giving the Board much more control over the team’s daily work and feeling more constrained and restricted in our work isn’t what TDF should be about, IMO.
I urge more community members to consider these discussions and share their views, as it’s the community that’s doing the biggest work on LibreOffice. What should the team be allowed to do?
Interesting part of the discussion to look at. Though IMO only a side path that popped up when Stéphane suggested that all that staff can never be in CoI.
I don’t see how the Thunderbird project could be doing anything that is not good for TDF; it is an important open source project just as LibreOffice acting in it’s own area.
But imagine that someone is pushing TDF to do things that are benefiting his business, while there is no contribution to the project, and those things will make it harder for those who do contribute to the project, to continue doing that. That is something that has to be seriously and carefully considered from the perspective of the foundations interest.
I cannot imagine that staff feels under (constant) supervision of the board. There is quite some distance and I think that is good. Board is there more for overall policy, goals etc, enabling people to work (either volunteer or staff).
Also, I guess you do not want to suggest that ‘knowing what the community wants’ is an exclusive quality of staff members, do you ?
Again, I see no signals at all that go in the direction of actually limiting creative powers or whatever.
These examples were given to nuance the idea that what the staff does can never be in CoI. Hope that is more clear now.
With you there. The work on the policy is, should not, be that.
I’ll read my own thoughts (somewhere up ^^) again tonight, and consider them from that perspective.
But feel free to help me, if you see things that you think can be (too) restricting.
And perhaps where the area begins/area’s are, that requires some caution because of different roles and responsibilities ?
I do know there had been discussions over quite a long time, with also the MC engaging. But I do not remember every detail from the top of my head. And it may well be that the process was not good in that respect. So again: good to look at and learn lessons.
‘Some board members objecting having…’ I think this current process proves the opposite?
Sure. I mentioned it as one of the means available. But that one is definitely not suitable in the given example. There should be other ways for feedback, I fully agree with you there.
To me it is a mystery why we should not consider that staff is not the same as other trustees especially not in relation with the board; it are directors who at the end of the day put their signature to take responsibility.
Also: ‘limitations’, guidelines, processes, will nor be random, nor for staff only. If you look again at my thoughts, there’s clear ‘limitations’ etc for board/directors as well?
Apart from that there’s just suggested something, I needed to think a bit about this one.
It is expected that people paid by contributing ecosystem companies to work for the project, in general work on stuff that the companies tell them to do, but with a large freedom to perform their task in accordance to their skills, experience and in good and friendly cooperation with other developers, e.g. in the ESC.
So let me ~copy paste: it is expected that people paid by the foundation to work for the project, in general work on stuff that the board, chosen to represent the trustees, tell them to do, but with a large freedom to perform their task in accordance to their skills, experience and in good and friendly cooperation with other people in the community, e.g. in the various teams.
Makes sense?
As a member of TDF, this proposal seems quite worrying. The proposed policy seems neither necessary nor useful to me. Valid concerns by TDF staff members and advisory board members from FSFE and KDE are seemingly being ignored.
As far as I can tell, the staff are doing good work (thanks all!) The problems with TDF lie elsewhere, namely, the BoD. Imposing dubious restrictions on TDF employees is not going to solve the deadlock in the BoD. The directors have to do that by themselves.
If you have the impression that this is the goal, that can only be due to the spin that others are giving here. Sorry for that.
The few posts on this topic that are actually about the possible content, should give a totally different view. Anyway, that is what I would expect. So please do read those and do give your own ideas on what would make sense or not.
Thanks
Cor
Did you have the opportunity to read the report of the boards face-to-face meeting in Budapest, July 8 and 9 this year? It has been mailed to tdf-internal on July 25th.
It was a very productive and friendly meeting. (Let me note that we still need to sent the full minutes…).
I do advice to look at it (again) and give feedback or let us know any questions.
Paolo had chosen not to join that meeting, and now we are in the process of further handling the items discussed and initiated there.
Note that various action items are about improving communication and relations, foundations governance etc. So: thanks for expressing your concerns! They are shared and we are working hard to improve wherever we can.
thanks for sharing your thoughts, which helps to make this initially quite vague topic more specific and thus also easier to reply to.
I was initially hesitating to comment here since I have only joined the TDF team recently and have the impression that I am lacking a lot of the experience/background that would be needed to understand what problems this proposal is trying to address. And, honestly, I still don’t really see that from reading the discussion so far either.
Could you possibly share (either here or in private) a few examples of what problems such a policy would have prevented in the past in your opinion?
Some thoughts/questions on single aspects mentioned during the discussion so far:
Having clear processes and properly handling frictions generally sounds like something desirable of course.
When looking at distinctive roles, I think it’s also essential to be aware that one person can have multiple roles within the project, and to clarify what role the suggested policy is meant to apply to.
In particular, since most staff members are also trustees/TDF members: Is that policy meant for their role as staff members (let’s say “what they do during the time they are paid for by TDF”) only or also for their role as TDF trustees (“what they do as project members in their free time”)?
I lack the background/experience to judge whether there’s a need to more clearly define how BoD interacts with staff members in their role as such. (Maybe an upcoming draft might give more clarity here.)
In any case, I would be very concerned if a new policy was trying to affect how staff members can act in their role as TDF trustees (“in their free time”), and so far cannot see any reason why staff members should be treated differently here than other trustees. (See also @ilmari’s questions in Asking your input! - #69 by ilmari that go in the same direction.)
Asking a colleague colleague first in case of doubt sounds like a good advice, and is actually an advice I was given by a colleague when starting in my new role in the TDF team. (Whether a new policy is needed for this is another question.)
I would say generally yes. But again, I would like to emphasize that this should in my opinion only apply to what these people do during the time for which they are actually paid by TDF, not what they do in their free time. (I would assume that this is the same for people working for ecosystem companies.)
With the initial idea being that input and new ideas are to be brought up primarily in the initial phase (i.e. before the draft policy is written): Will it then still be possible to add new ideas at this stage as well, so that those that don’t find the time to do so beforehand still have the chance for these to be included just as well? (to take into account the original idea of gathering broad input from everybody)
While I don’t see the need for a policy to rule the interactions between BoD and team members, I do see the need for a complete overhaul of the internal climate at The Document Foundation. Working at TDF is not as rewarding as it used to be, and probably the same feeling applies to contributing to the project. At the moment we are all victims of the confrontational climate which has developed within the BoD, and has extended at least to the MC and the team. Rules will not change the climate, and will not solve the issues, unless the climate changes and reverts to the spirit of collaboration which was created by the founders. Setting rules without changing the climate will only increase the frustration of people who won’t be able to express themselves (for the fear to go against the rules) but will still be affected by the negative climate, which will strengthen the desire of expressing themselves (and so on, in a vicious circle). I have decided to refrain from expressing my thoughts a long time ago, to avoid being trapped by this perverse mechanism. Unfortunately, at the moment I don’t see a solution for the current situation, and I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Also, I don’t have any suggestion for a meaningful policy, apart from not seeing the need for that document (for the reasons I have already provided).
?