I do support the request as well.
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 wrote earlier on
And now you wrote
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.
Thanks for considering,
Florian
Hi Florian,
Thanks for spending time to ask this.
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.
Thanks,
Cor
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.
Hi Cor, everyone,
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?
Mike
Hi Mike,
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 ?
Thanks Mike!
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?
Thanks,
Cor
Hi,
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.
Hi Tuomas,
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.
Hi @cornouws, all,
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 pretty much agree with what @Sweetshark and @stragu have written on that before (Asking your input! - #38 by Sweetshark and Asking your input! - #47 by stragu ).
That sounds interesting and I’m sure that finding (better) ways to handle conflicts would be for the benefit of all.
@cornouws in Asking your input! - #74 by cornouws :
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.)
@cornouws in Asking your input! - #65 by cornouws
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)
Best regards,
Michael
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).
Completely agree with you
Hi @italovignoli ,
you are absolutely right, it is essential to change the internal climate but that will happen only when things that happened and are happening will be evident and understood by all.
The positive side is that more members of the community are expressing their opinion instead of remaining silent, that’s what we need. It is fantastic to know that LibreOffice is free and is available free of charge for millions of users but it would be even better if all these users contributed somehow even if it’s by participating to discussions that shape the future of TDF and the community.
I’m quite confident that, quite soon, more information about the cause of those conflicts and the necessary step to put an end to them will be made public making it easier to delineate a path for the future. That will also make the proposed policy totally unnecessary.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi @cornouws,
Why I’m always the one that gets mentioned?
Myself and many others did not join the meeting the 4 of you decided to organise despite the objections from several people.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your ideas etc.
For now, one remark, and one answer:
This concept is mentioned often and I once (twice?) briefly replied to it.
That distinction may work in people’s agenda, but how does it work in our brains, energies, personalities? Is it reasonable to expect that you work friendly and professional with someone who - in your experience - in a different role, is unfriendly and not respectful towards you or fighting the ideas that you really believe in?
So in the case of people with multiple roles (board<>staff, staff<>board), it is not as easy as: different hour, different role.
Look at it from another angle: if a trustee (in his/her free time) is really unhappy with a boards policy, should she/he be able to fully support and execute in the role as staff? Not?
Or maybe we can suggest (analogue at the ‘solution’ to exclude people affiliated to ecosystem companies from the board) that a member of staff cannot be a trustee? IMO an ugly ‘solution’.
I don’t think that ‘strong restrictions’ for both directors and staff are wise or needed, but just doing as if there are no special relations, is for sure not wise. The situation we are in partly comes from the fact that we have things to learn here.
Good question. If we are serious about looking at the draft with staff - and I certainly want to - the only answer is yes.
Hi @cornouws,
thanks for your answer.
Well, first of all I would consider it unreasonable to be be unfriendly and disrespectful in any role. What I expect is that staff members - like any trustee - can participate in discussions in a civilized manner.
I personally don’t remember having seen unfriendly and discrespectful behavior from staff towards BoD members in the public discussions in the past, so - as mentioned in my previous post - don’t see the need for a Board-Staff policy for this. (And if there’s a problem with inappropriate behavior in public discussions, that should IMHO be regulated in the Code of Conduct or something like that instead that applies for all trustees just the same.)
“Fighting the ideas that you really believe in” sounds quite open to interpretation. I would expect people to be able to work in a friendly and professional way with people that disagree with their perspective in some ways in general. (As mentioned, those disagreements should be handled respectfully.)
For me, @italovignoli’s post Asking your input! - #79 by italovignoli sems to describe the situation and underlying problem pretty well.
I’m not sure I understand this question correctly.
Do you mean a staff member being unhappy with a BoD decision cannot easily work (in their role as staff member) on what the BoD decided? If so, how does preventing the staff member from mentioning that they disagree change the situation? (Will it make them happier to disagree without being able to say so?)
Or is the question whether staff members being unhappy with BoD decisions can continue to be staff members at all?
Again, I don’t see what problem that policy would solve here. If having multiple roles is seen as a core problem, I don’t see how making staff members “trustees with limited free speech” could be a proper solution. (And this is what the direction of the proposal seems to be to me at the moment.)
What is the exact aspect/problem of the mentioned “special relations” that needs to be further regulated in your opinion, and why?
Tough question. I tend to see this in the frame of functioning of a government. Civil servants have to execute what’s decided in parliament or say a minister. The can be pretty unhappy about it. However it’s beyond their control. It might affect morale, though.
It’s also possible to say: it should be possible to voice unhappiness. The matter is where and how. En public or internally. How often may repeat the unhappiness. Expressing unhappiness doesn’t mean something will change. The staff is able to quite if it’s heavy burden. Or - in the extreme - being fired if unhappiness affecting the performance. And well there are outcomes in between: like a burn-out. A high turnover of staff surely not a good sign.
Same government analogy can be applied to functioning of BoD. It’s bit like a Council of Ministers deciding on a matter. In the Netherlands unity of government is preferred. So the decision is public, but the debate and votes are secret. As long as you’re a Minister you’re supporting the policy set out by the majority, even if you voted (internally) against it. If you’re unable to support the policy in principle in good continuous, even if it’s majority vote, you’re supposed to resign. In principle this is good system, because it promotes an effective functioning board. At the same time signaling something being wrong (someone resigned). The resignation can be done silently, or with extensive motivation.
A board is dysfunctional with a continuous flow of resignations. This might imply a board crisis. It isn’t a sign of stability. For example: CFO, resigns. The next CFO resigns within 6 months after being installed. This surely signals something to the outside world.