Hi Kevin,
Thanks for mentioning. Can you please explain why that is (for you)? Is that the words I’ve chosen, or the question I’ve put there? Or something else?
Thanks,
Cor
(NB my 1st name is ‘Cor’ without ‘s’, stems from my first full birth name Cornelius).
Hi Kevin,
Can you please explain based on what facts you do have that idea?
Thanks - Cor
Cor,
I would like to understand how things have seemingly gone from an open ended discussion on this list, without any synthesis of the points raised for and against any given position, or even any publicly organized vote on any such position, or report thereof, to mandating a law firm to draw up a document, the contents of which mandate seem known only to 1 or 2 people?
Please explain how the Board justifies acting in such a manner, which appears to be ultra vires?
Is the Board, or are certain members of the Board, acting outside the powers conferred on it by the statutes? If that is the case, then we are in a very grave situation indeed.
I note that you don’t seem to have replied to any of my previous questions, irrespective of the topic. Is this a deliberate ploy to try and fob me off, hoping that I would just give up?
Alex
Hi,
The strawman you made is. But your strawman has little to do with what I wrote.
I am neither implying the first nor the second. However, I am saying that those with an economic interest in the output of the foundation can be in conflict of interest at least as much as those that are paid to help the foundation providing that output (via a salary or via a contract). There obviously and clearly can be conflicts of interest on both sides. And if that is “people” or “ecosystem partners” or foundation staff is mostly irrelevant: People and entities are closely related: Most entities dont exist without people supporting them.
Best Regards,
Bjoern
Hi Alex, all,
Since Paolo was unfortunately not able to attend the conference in person (where we discussed this & other topics at length), he might not have the full picture. Sadly, that does not stop him from sharing his own interpretations, which in this case borders on misrepresenting what happens.
We’re still in the process of collecting feedback; the law firm Paolo mentioned, was approached for eventually helping with turning this input into a draft policy (similar to other policies, where TDF also contracted legal advise) . No expenditures are committed to this day, and no decision on anything specific regarding said policy (not even whether there will be one in the end) was taken.
Best, Thorsten
Hi all,
My comments are based on my remote presence in all official meetings and on written records confirming what I wrote. Feel free to point to any statements I wrote that you think is wrong and I’ll share the relevant records.
Relevant records also show that the chairman has been asked several times not to deal with that law firm due to issues of a personal nature, confirmed also by other directors, which are now being evaluated in more details. The law firm has been notified of the issues in several occasions but they carried on regardless and without providing any feedback to the emails they received in relation to those issues.
Another example of misrepresentation of facts, by the chairman, contradicts what he stated:
The email sent by Cor to the directors mailing list the 14/09/2023 mentioning the meeting they had with the law firm the 13/09/2023, without informing the board, states that the cost would be €X to €X “including the discussion today”.
That cost does not include the eventual evaluation of comments from the community showing the commitment to the expenditure has been made already despite the evidence that most do not want a policy that started with a very undefined request for input but where, at present, the only input provided to that law firm is clearly biased toward what 2 directors wanted since at least 2020.
The commitment to that expenditure has been confirmed also by a vote ran by Cor the 25/09/2023. Despite the negative feedback and what has been agreed at LibOCon the chairman and other directors voted for it once again misleading the team and the community.
Some directors stated during LibOCon that the board should work to regain trust, the actions by a portion of the board are surely not helping at all.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Paolo,
This is false. I had contact with a law firm that the board contracted for legal back log/additional work; not ‘yet another law firm’. Also the firm has not been instructed. It was asked for availability and a quote. There was initial exchange about possibilities to help TDF.
The board has been extensively informed on the contact already the following day.
This is false.
It has been committed to see if it may be possible to reach the desired goals without a policy and to do this when there is a draft, since only then it is clear what the ideas are.
This only underlines the importance (as I’ve been doing repeatedly in this topic) for people to get over ‘I do not like it’ and express what it is that they do want or do not want. This only underlines the importance of a process, as we’ve been working on from the start, to give all the possibilities to share input and comment later on.
One can only state that, if you count all questions as negative, which of course is not per see the case. If you say that ~nobody wants a policy, I state that ~everyone wants relations to improve and prevent issues from the past, so…
This is false. The board already decided earlier to work with the firm. That two directors didn’t agree, does not change the boards position.
Totally objectionable it is, that you falsely state that I and Thorsten were already committing to unapproved expenditure.
This is false. You are totally omitting the important fact the initial draft and full explanation including mail correspondence with the law firm had already been sent to the board on September 14, 10 day before the vote.
This is false. I have not committed TDF to any expenditure. I discussed possibilities that have been shared with the board and have now lead to a resolution. Also is always respected that it is up to the board to decide on any instruction.
This is false framing. There are no issues with the law firm.
Also in the discussions honestly all concerns and questions shared could be well answered. Of course, that you and some others constantly whisper that ‘the policy is already written’ and that the goal is ‘to muzzle staff’ is something we can only defend ourselves against by continuing the process how it started: open and honestly communicating.
There will be a moment that people see the result and will realize that you are spreading negativity and FUD.
That is not correct. The law firm has relevant knowledge of the legal situation in Germany and a long time experience with open source communities. It is specifically that kind of help that will allow us (all of us that want to constructively engage, and not only try to derail) to create a draft together that combines all ideas, input, concerns. A draft that we can then look at to see if things can be reached without ‘a policy’.
That is a false framing. The mails from September 13 clearly shows that it is not about ‘window dressing’, but to work together with the community on something that people feel is really serving our community.
A misleading statement. As you know, they will get the input from phase 1.
Clear is that the process is open, that everyone is invited to contribute constructively in working on the draft and assessing the need based on that full information.
It appears from all your false statements and mean framing, as well as misleading information from above, that you have a different goal. Why is it that you constantly have to act like this?
Cor
Hi Cor,
as you stated that what I wrote is false I guess you are prepared to support your claims by sharing with the community:
In regard to what has been stated by the majority of people at LibOCon on how to proceed I presented my summary which is open to be challenged or confirmed by those that were present and I invite them to do so.
Because the evidence we have confirm what I stated and I don’t like it when the team and the community is being mislead by statements that have little to do with the evidence we have.
If the board wishes to regain trust then it has to accept for its actions and decisions to be scrutinised.
Ciao
Paolo
Thanks Thorsten,
This whole thing comes across as one sorry, and somewhat sordid, mess, and clearly it is affecting the functioning of the Board. Having people do one thing in one corner, and say or do things in another corner, can only lead to misunderstanding and friction. It seems from where I sit that things look unlikely to change, absent a change in the Board constitution, possibly the constitutional organs of the foundation, and even a rewriting of the rules of the foundation, in order to avoid that such situations will occur again in the future. I know that that would be easier said than done, but one can not sincerely hope that the current situation will continue indefinitely ?
Best regards,
Alex
Interesting take - so when you approached me in 2019 for a quote for “LibreOffice Online”, you did commit to the expenditures as offered? I should send you my invoice then. 
Checking the quote I received, from the company that previously employed you, dated 05/02/2019 for standard pre-paid LibreOffice Online support services I see that it rightly states “we commence work only after explicit order” and there is no mention of costs “including services already rendered” so, as nothing has been ordered and/or provided even from a project analysis PoV, nothing is due to your previous employer.
As the quote from the law firm, with which you and Cor engaged without informing the board and despite the issues you well know, mentions a potential cost X “including the discussion today” then, in case of non acceptance of the quote, there is still the issue of the costs for services already rendered in relation to the biased and incomplete briefing and all the suggestions already provided.
It is clear that you and Cor already decided, despite well documented objections, that the law firm would get the contract and committed TDF to an expenditure that was not agreed for services that, according to the feedback we received here and at LibOCon, are not desired by the majority of stakeholders.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Paolo,
Which is a bit of a shame. Apparently, none of those projects you were pitching to us back in the day went anywhere (at least not where any ecosystem was involved).
I continue to be amazed by your creative interpretations (of what happened, and of contract law in particular).
I think you’re being a bit naive then. Further, I’m not sure what you mean by conflict of interest if the party that is acting in the interests to follow the mission and goals of the TDF is contradicting the party that stands to gain an economic benefit from the TDF. You seem to have a different view of what the TDF’s mission is. That, or the TDF mission statement is too broad and open to multiple interpretations.
Hello,
I hoped that I don’t have to add more to this lengthy thread. In the end, however, saying nothing to this also public discussion does not feel like a good option either.
I am really surprised to see this topic pushed so much. The public vote on protection of employees has not progressed so far yet.
The situation at TDF is that subordinate employees have to estimate and evaluate tenders and handle the related payments. Bidders represented in the board participate in these tenders. At the same time, these bidders and board members are the bosses of the employees. The progress of tenders is also part of the annual employee performance review about me, where it is assessed how good or bad I do my job. Responsible for this review in the past were also board members who are bidders. This already makes the situation very complicated.
Transparency and openness is something that I strongly advocate for. However, now we discuss a policy that is relevant only for the the team, but with the whole world watching. The feeling I have is like in a zoo, where everybody looks at the animals in the cage. The members of the team are also a part of the community, but the feeling is a lot different these days. Due to all this, several team members do not feel they can be a true part of the community anymore.
The vast majority of the feedback recommends to not proceed with the policy. This also matches the feedback from the advisory board that was shared in this thread. I saw only a few supporters of such a policy. Everyone else advised against.
In this thread we learned that the board has a law firm working on the policy. The team is on their own. This does not give any feeling of confidence. It gives a feeling of threat and subordination.
From what I remember, things started to turn bad about three and a half years ago. There was a private board decision on a specific topic that included commercial activities. The decision then was made public. It sparked a lot of questions from the wider community. Many had concerns and questions, including members of the then-next board. It also raised questions by members of the team. They were unsure about their future work situation, about TDF’s funding and the future path of LibreOffice - very essential things not only for employees.
So we as a team worked on a set of questions and sent them to the board. We did so only in private, not in public. Still, that lead to some very unpleasant phone calls for some of us. Several employees reported they felt pressured and attacked during these one-on-one-calls.
The questions were only asked to the board in private. This is a channel that should be trustworthy and safe, where people can speak out freely without fear. Also from today’s point of view, I still think the questions are quite reasonable. Some questions address issues that were discussed also later on in the community.
In my interactions with the team, I always try to encourage them to speak out, ask questions to me, raise concerns over my decisions, disagree with me and point at mistakes I make. This not only gives a feeling of belonging together. Even more, it also helps me to avoid making mistakes, and it helps the team to grow and evolve. We are all human beings, we all live in our “bubble”, and a view from outside often is very helpful and brings in new perspectives. I am very happy if people challenge my decisions, because it helps everyone to get better and learn.
It is really sad that something that happened three and a half years ago leads to the situation we are in now. All of us will only lose. Of course, the board can vote on any policy they see fit. However, the toxic situation at TDF, that is also known to the board since at least 2021, has been described as unbearably by several members of the team. That is not only a problem about communication inside the board, but also in communication with the team. Several employees report health issues due to their job. What happens now makes things only worse. You might end up with a policy, but at the price of losing several people.
In the end, the board asks for feedback in public, and the deadline ends this Saturday. So I will mention just a few things that, if there will be a policy, must be considered from my point of view.
Please keep in mind: I explicitly do NOT support or endorse such a policy. I do NOT make a proposal for the policy because I suggest to have one. I make a proposal to have at least a tiny little bit less painful and devastating outcome and hope to retain more people in the team.
I will only mention things that I have personally experienced. However, this is not only about me. I simply don’t want to share something other team members might perceive as very intimate and personal without their explicit consent.
I will not name the involved people here and I hope this will not be to my disadvantage.
During a formal employee meeting with me, one director expressed to another director participating in the meeting how much he dislikes him, in very strong words. Hostility amongst board members can not swap over to formal meetings with employees. Whatever is discussed or decided there otherwise will be tainted, affected and influenced by that behaviour. Employees must have a fair and impartial setup to interact with the board, especially in formal meetings.
One specific director is not involved in certain staff-related activity because some members of the board say they do not trust him anymore. Employees cannot be deprived of their right to work with their managers. Hostility amongst board members needs to be resolved at the board level. Elected directors stay elected directors and it cannot be made harder to employees to interact with an elected board member if they wish so.
There are known tensions between TDF as an organization and some companies represented by members of the board. For certain formal staff meetings, this puts employees in the unresolvable situation to not act to the disadvantage of TDF. The board needs to resolve these things at the board level and not put the burden on the subordinate employees. Board members are also representatives of organizations with which there are tensions. Employees must have the safety and protection to only work in the best of interest of TDF and TDF only.
As executive director, certain formal communication regarding these tensions are addressed to me, on behalf of TDF. Such communication comes with my role. However, employees cannot be subordinated to board members who at the same time act as representatives of a company that deals with TDF, even more so when there are tensions between TDF and these companies. There must be a clear distinction in subordination and reporting and it must be clear in which capacity people act.
During a formal employee meeting, one director told me I was a partisan and a political agitator. This is untrue. Formal meetings should be based on objective criteria, not on unsubstantiated attacks expressed in aggressive words. Verbal attacks and unjustified accusations against employees cannot be tolerated, especially not in formal employee meetings. Another member of the board, who participated in this meeting, did not take any action. This is not acceptable.
Certain formal employee meetings seem not to be known to the full board. In the past, sometimes a board majority even fully disagreed with the scope and outcome. As a general rule, with exceptions as aforementioned, team members cannot be hindered from involving their managers and elected directors in certain topics. All elected directors must be aware of any formal activities regarding employees. Treatment of employees must happen in a fair, impartial manner and only by those who are not involved into tensions between TDF and their own companies.
In an internal chat group with board, membership committee and team, one director made a comment about me that put me close to a politician, according to Wikipedia, whose “views and comments […] have been described as far-right and populist”. Attacks on employees by their direct managers, even more so in front of all other colleagues from the various bodies, cannot be tolerated.
A former board member discredited me towards a member of the team. Behind my back, the person said TDF was controlled by Florian Effenberger and complained that I would do political agitation. It is not ok to discredit team members towards their colleagues. It is even worse when it happens behind their backs. The board was informed, but did not take any action.
A board member talked to another member of the team and asked if it wasn’t suspicious that Florian spends so much time with one specific director. It is not appropriate to suggest a team member would influence an elected director, or that an elected director let themselves be influenced by a team member.
After a board vote, that was based on clear legal recommendations by several lawyers, the board sent an e-mail to a company with which TDF has tensions with. That e-mail was sent in private by a member of the board and signed by four members of the board. After receiving it, a former board member, whose company was a recipient of that letter, painted me in public as being part of a “(self-appointed?) small board sub-group” and hinted that the “instruction & brief” to the lawyer was done wrong. Neither have I signed the letter, nor have I sent it. Interestingly, I was explicitly mentioned even if I did not sign the e-mail, but two other signing board members were not. Upon learning the aforementioned things, the board took no action. When a subordinate team member gets discredited, they deserve support and protection from TDF as their employer. When attacks happen in public, support and protection must happen in public too. All board members are responsible for the wellbeing of the employees. There are also other known actions of attacks in public where employees were left fully unprotected.
I was told that certain concerns cannot be shared with the board, because they don’t like to hear that, as they are all volunteers. The board, if they like it or not, represents TDF as the employer of a team of way more than a dozen people now. Things can be structured differently, so much less of the day to day operations and decisions is with the board, but ultimately, turning down concerns from the team because all board members are volunteers leaves the employees without a point of contact.
In the meantime, one particular meeting concerning members of staff that took place in March 2020 is known in public. Any policy must include clear and stark sanctions for the drivers behind such events.
What happens here, pushing through a policy, will be just detrimental for everyone. It will further poison the atmosphere. It will add to demotivation and frustration. Members of the team will continue to look for new jobs, because they can’t stand the toxic work atmosphere at TDF anymore. I hope the very few people who actually do support this policy are aware of the possible outcome.
I assume someone reply will be that with all the examples I made, I obviously also want a policy, so all this can be addressed. Let me make it abundantly clear: I do NOT consider a policy helpful at all. A policy will create further issues and wounds and will poison the environment at TDF even further.
If you want to see employees quit or suffer burnout, go with a policy. If you want to fix the problems at TDF, do NOT do a policy.
The things that are not working, and that make people quit their jobs and walk away, and make them suffer from health issues, is broken human interaction, problems with self-understanding, and a lack of respect. Getting these back into place is based on an understanding on how we all want to work together. It is based on how we see ourselves and each other, and how we envision the environment we want to create to work in together.
People are still here, willing to solve the situation to the benefit of TDF and the full community. Don’t burn these people further.
If that is lacking, no policy in the world can fix that. It can make things only significantly worse.
Florian
I totally second Florian’s comment. I don’t think that a policy - whatever policy - will solve the issues we have as a project and as a community. I have expressed several times my concerns and I have tried to suggest a way forward in different ways, but my suggestion has been ignored (and not because of the choice of an alternative solution). The situation has not improved, even with the help of a mediator.
I don’t see a commitment to find a positive solution to the current frictions at BoD level, and - even worse - I don’t see a new BoD as a potential solution, because the willingness to reach consensus is completely missing. Of course, a policy to solve communication issues with the team - if any - will not solve communication issues within the BoD, and may have negative collateral effects.
I totally support what @S.t.e.p.h and @floeff stated as I witness most of the issues they describe and because I tried my best to avoid many of those issues, including the imposition of this policy.
These things happened not because of lack of consensus, to the contrary, they happened because there is a majority in the board that voted for those things to happen disregarding objections from the minority and even legal advice.
If Emiliano and myself said nothing about this and many other issues then you, the rest of the team and the community would have been blissfully unaware of what is going on and would have seen a board that unanimously went ahead with things that are clearly not making you, the rest of the team and the community happy at all.
I did apologise to you as I make your life a bit more difficult with my public complaints of how things are going within the board but that happens when I have to disassociate myself from decisions that are clearly influenced by conflict of interests, that circumvent or go directly against legal advice or are even made as a clear retaliation for not shutting up.
Months ago I proposed to have a representative of the staff in the board so as you are one of the founders I do invite you to be that representative so that you can experience first hand what causes “frictions”, “communication issues” and how “consensus building” or “on-boarding” meetings are ran to wear people out in accepting a predetermined outcome.
I’m getting fed up to read that “the board” did not act in relation to certain issues or that “the board” is unwilling to reach a consensus as that associates me with actions of the majority of this board that I consider unethical at best.
Florian described only as subset of the issues that the majority of this board does not want to tackle and comes up with distractions that lead to more damages for TDF, the staff and the community.
That’s the “consensus” you have in this board.
Shall I just shut up or even resign so that this “consensus” carries on in silence and without scrutiny or you, the rest of the team and the rest of the community joins in to actually help fix things?
Ciao
Paolo
I completely agree that a policy cannot solve the problem, much less a policy made by a BoD that is in part a generator of the problem.
Even if the policy were to be created, it would be a big problem to approve it by an inoperative BoD in which a couple of the members oppose anything another couple proposes and vice versa and the rest are totally inoperative. What policy will be the result of this board?
Probably a new board of directors will not solve all the problems, but what I am sure of is that this board is proving to be incapable of solving problems due to the continuous confrontations between them.
HI Paolo,
That is a horrible idea. The board as elected represents the trustees will of how to interpret the statues of the foundation. If the board is having disagreements it is because it has to represent different positions of the trustees. Staff should ideally not have privileged representation on the board over other trustees, and if anything it already is significantly privileged in their access to leadership over other trustees.
Neither individual members of the board, nor the staff can solve their problems by simply rejecting or ignoring what the electorate – which should be the active contributors to the project – chose.
Thus, the most worrying development of the last years is the number of board members stepping down, leaving the remaining board as something not quite representing what the trustees elected.
Best,
Bjoern
Hi @jucasaca,
you might have missed a few comments that explains better the situation.
The policy is being pushed by those members of the board that have been clearly identified as the generators of the problems.
There is a couple of directors, including the chairman, that push for that policy, a couple of directors that have been trying to convince those directors that it’s a very bad idea and 3 directors that follow what the 2 first director wants, by sending their +1, without even discussing the merits of most proposals with the whole board.
It has been confirmed several times that 2 members of the board have been excluded from those discussions. The few times that there has been the opportunity to ask those “inoperative” directors why they sent their +1 they have been unable to come up with coherent explanations.
As stated above this board is perfectly capable of dealing with the confrontations as 2 board members can count on the votes of 3 others that do not seem to question the validity, legality and usefulness of those decisions.
If there wasn’t a minority expressing their concerns about what is going on then these decisions would go out without much noise until the detrimental effects are clear to all. Is that what you prefer?
Ciao
Paolo
As a former member of the BoD I find it necessary to state that the conflicting members of the BoD are only there to represent purely commercial interests. That is why the objective behind the imposition of this policy is none other than to pave the way for total control (of the money) of the foundation (echoes TDC).
Reference is made to the pseudo-consensus, but in reality there remain trite arguments and the dismissal of any initiative that seeks to safeguard the interests of TDF.