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).
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I think your example / description is not appropriate to TDF, its board and members of staff.
a) The BoD are not elected by a parliament. They have to follow the clear rules of the foundation statutes and the rules applying to foundations / associations in Germany (the home of TDF).
b) The member of staff are no Civil servants, but employees or contractors and at the same time members of the board of trustees. Even as employees (and contractors) they have the right of free speech. This right (fixed in the German constitution) didn’t end at the ‘factory gate’.
c) Modern peoples management abstain from (tight) supervising employees and treat them with respect. Modern employer create a comfortable and helpful environment, the opposite of which some members of the board did for some time.
The analogy is far from perfect, I admit. There are similarity’s. A country - like Germany - has an written constitution. The constitution likely instructs parliament to create specific laws about elections. Those constitution and additional laws form the statutes of the country.
Parliament is elected by the citizens who are allowed to vote. Parliament tries to find some majority collation.
The citizens in this case are TDF members, who are able to vote the BoD directly without a parliament representing the voters.
Freedom of speech has a nice ring to it. It’s a legal concept with very specific meaning. In origin about relation between relation of citizens and government. Citizens should be able to criticize the government without repercussions.
Freedom of speech does guarantee you can say or do anything at any place without consequences. It’s nuanced.
This sounds a bit uni-directional. Employer has obligations towards employees, but the same standards don’t apply for employees towards the employer? Employers are also people preferring a good working climate. At least I assume so.
The interesting question that comes to my mind after reading this is what kind of governance/decision-making process the TDF directors suggesting this policy envision for TDF, how much transparency they want and whether - and if so, to what extent and in what form - input and feedback from trustees is desirable for them.
To me, it seems like this is crucial as a basis to understand/discuss whether (and if so how) a Board-Staff policy is needed to introduce new rules.
That’s the whole point. The BoD have to role (burden) to to make controversial decisions. The keep being controversial as such. The goals is also to have an effective board which can execute decisions or a strategy. Instead of being stuck in (internal) squabbles formal procedures. There need to be checks and balances. The question is how the implement it.
Formal procedures might improve things at one end, but they are also bureaucratic and slow. A possible side effect is that people will try to invent loopholes to speed up the process. Until it’s abused.
I actually forgot to mention an essential part. With politics an individual Ministers or the Council of Ministers (represented by Prime Minister) must answer about he their functioning. Parliament must asses the reply given. It can arrange a confidence vote to remove a single Minister or the whole Council of Ministers because of a lack of trust. There will be new election if the trust in the Council of Ministers (as a whole) being gone. There is also a possibility of new elections if there no confidence vote on a single Minister. The Council of Ministers can say we are supporting the Minister unconditionally. If you vote him away, we resign as collective. The idea is to create a balance in power. New elections mean: new parliament & new council of ministers. This also entails that parliament can’t seize control of council of ministers.
The ministers are always in the role. So if Council of Ministers have taken a decision in majority you need to defend it. Also in parliament. You can’t say well in formally decided it, but I was actually against it. If the decisions that critical: resign. It’s a gamble. The resignation triggers questions (parliament). Who can arrange a confidence vote about the matter. If they decide that there still confidence in the remaining board, the process will continue. The dissenting element being removed. In the other case the dissenting opponent being proven right, with new elections as a consequence.
You can’t predict what the result of new elections would be. Citizens have pretty volatile opinion. So parliament might cast a non-confidence vote on the Council of Ministers. Triggering new elections. However the same persons can run for the post again. Forming the same Council of Ministers as before the elections. The will of the people has ultimately decided.
This more basic outline of the idea. Not complete account of all aspects. And the analogy has it flaws; so needs to be adapted to the actual situation.
short note, also here: at LibOCon in Bucharest is has been agreed that phase 1 (say ~this topic) will last until two weeks after the conference, so October 7, to give people an extra opportunity.
This apart from the extra steps - already mentioned - for team members to provide feedback/input.
Cheers,
Cor
