Hi Cor,
If that’s all you got out of 160+ comments here, many years of complaints from members of staff, the community and even negative comments from members of the Advisory Board then it’s just a confirmation that we all have wasted our time and you’ll carry on regardless as it was expected by many.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Paolo,
That you and many other here have wasted your time(*) on this thread can be certified regardless of Cors perception.
Best, Bjoern
(*) in addition to unfortunately also wasting the time of many readers
Hi Cor,
As I wrote before, my personal perception in the current situation is that it would have been helpful to have mediation first or have some additional check in place for the process to ensure nothing can be “pushed through” to build more acceptance for the process itself.
If that’s not an option and the decision is that the policy process must move on now, your suggestion sounds reasonable to me, in particular with the earlier promise in mind that alternative solutions to a policy are considered as well.
I think it might be helpful to have third party moderation/mediation in place as early as possible.
Regards,
Michael
We all always act for a personal interest, no matter what it is, being in general the main one the economic. And IMHO there is no exception to this.
Therefore, it seems to me, to say the least, inappropriate that some interests are claimed to be more valid than others.
The board has the responsibility to assume its obligations. Being ultimately responsible for the actions in and by TDF.
I believe that the main defect in the actions of the board is not really assuming its duties and allowing its agreements not to be carried out as they should be.
It is normal for the board to listen to proposals and comments from the executives (that goes with the charge) and through them from the staff, as well as from TDF members, when it is relevant to their decision, but it cannot be asking for every comma.
In the case of the policy, which I consider mandatory, not doing so is like a shot in the foot. It is clear that it must follow the listening process, but adopting it’s a board decision. Hard to believe it has not been taken yet.
It is not possible to make decisions that please everyone.
To the board, please go ahead and take your decisions, keeping the delay to a minimum.
It is the only way to end this useless nonsense.
Those who disagree with board decisions, run in the next election, and if successful, make your decisions.
(I’ll first apologize for not taking the time to offer a comprehensive opinion on this entire subject and only nit-pickingly refer to a few points. And having said that:)
Michael, I want to ask you to give (at least) another example of veto-by-inaction. The reasons for this are:
So, I do not consider this claim as being established by the example. No less importantly, if the main discomfort with the current situation regards interaction with @floeff , it’s not clear that appropriate course of action is a general policy rather something focused on the role of the Executive Director structurally, or some kind of interpersonal conflict resolution/mediation. So, I would hope you could buttress your claim with an example regarding more than one person/position (or two examples for two people each). I realize that airing such grievances in public is unpleasant, but we are discussing potentially-somewhat-harsh measures here, so this is probably merited.
I am. I am arguing for that.
I am against the kind of loyalty you suggested, Michael. It is a feature of authoritarian organizations - a reprehensible feature. Certainly, the staff and office holders should not use their position to hinder and confound majority decisions; but it is both immoral and detrimental to expect them to adopt an opinion they oppose or to shut up and censor themselves about their opposition.
I do realize that my position on this matter involves some risk: The risk of (to put it in extreme terms) entrenchment of an unelected bureaucracy, eventually exceeding the strength of the officials and bodies who appointed its key members. Such a bureaucracy may even be able to manipulate public opinion and get supportive or push-over candidates into governing/oversight bodies. But if you want to protect against that possibility, the way to do so is to educate and empower the body politic - in our case, at least the trustees - to be able to exercise meaningful control in such cases. And there are other more technical measures which… well… actually, I’d rather not be specific about right now since I think I might put my foot in my mouth more than I already have.
The concerns regarding this suggestion of yours deepen, for me, during times of factional divide within the board, or the organization as a whole. When a “coalition” beats the “opposition” in a vote - this tenet you propose forces the staff to fully take the coalition’s side. Maybe the coalition has it right - but maybe it’s the opposition; or at least, the opposition may be expressing sentiments and interests which have not been taken into account. I would not like coalitions to have such extra artificial strength in settling or suppressing factional disputes. On the contrary: I would like it for coalitions to be motivated to seek concensus in decision making, or to have to appeal to / engage with the body politic more.
This is pretty patronizing and a little sexist Cor.
Don’t you and Allotropia have a tight partnership and an aligned strategy? allotropia software GmbH and Collabora announce partnership - Collabora Office and Collabora Online
The board has the responsibility to assume its obligations. Being ultimately responsible for the actions in and by TDF.
No, we - the trustees - are ultimately responsible, collectively. The board has authority, but they act - at least formally and in principle - as our representatives. For better or worse, we’re responsible, even if this responsibility is somewhat diffuse. That’s where our name comes from: We are the trustees; the foundation is in our trust.
Those who disagree with board decisions, run in the next election, and if successful, make your decisions.
Many trustees do not have the necessary skills and experience to assume the duties of a BoD member of the TDF (which is perfectly legitimate; the criterion for membership is contribution to LibreOffice, not FOSS NGO management capabilities). Moreover, most trustees definitely cannot devote sufficient time to carry out these duties. So, even in principle - your suggestion is invalid. But beyond that - come on. That line is a cop-out for deflecting criticism.
It may be due to my poor understanding of what the TDF statutes say.
§ 8 Tasks of the Board of Directors
(1) The Board of Directors decides on all fundamental matters on its own authority in accordance with the Articles and conducts the ongoing business of the foundation. The Executive Board has the status of a legal representative and represents the foundation in and out of court. The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the purpose of the Foundation. The foundation shall be represented by two members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be the chairman or vice-chairman. Individual empowerment may be granted for certain transactions in this way. The vice chairman will take action on internal matters only if the chairman is unavailable.
Hello,
some other topics were mentioned in the meantime, but I would like to focus again on the staff policy. It was the start of this discussion.
The board had extended the feedback phase until October 7. It was said that the law firm “will get the input that the community has been given in the first phase”.
Has a copy of the public discussion thread been provided to the law firm as input?
In my initial mail, I explained the following:
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.
Can you please get explicit confirmation from the law firm that the above setup does not impose any problem?
I read that the policy should also apply to lawyers. Does this mean the law firm writes their own policy?
As explained, I as executive director receive also formal communication to TDF from companies that are represented in the board, and with which there are tensions. Their representatives support this policy. The policy should also cover TDF’s lawyers, who consult TDF on tensions with these companies.
How can it be ensured that under such policy it will be possible for me and TDF’s lawyers to act in the best interest of TDF? I am employed by TDF, bound by the statutes and have to act in the best interest of TDF, and TDF only. This could put me in an entirely unresolvable situation. What is the law firm’s advise on this?
What is an employee supposed to do when they consider a decision detrimental to TDF or in violation of regulations?
Has the employee to be loyal to the individual board members, or to TDF as the employer, regulated by its statutes?
What is an employee supposed to do when there are fundamentally different opinions in the board?
As it was mentioned here, we have external consultancy for facilitated discussion involved. My strong suggestion to move forward, as “concrete alternatives to a policy on how to address the problems”, is to work within a facilitated discussion, to see how we can constructively solve the issues at hand. Until then, any work on a policy should be laid to rest.
In such a facilitated discussion, I am sure we can overcome fears like the team would be able “to exert quite some pressure on board members”, or that employees “can campaign in public & with their TDF trustee hat on”. Remembering the last elections, the team was not commenting a lot and I did not see any campaigning.
Florian
Hi Florian,
I have read your post now multiple times, but I am quite confused by what you write.
This seems to imply you as an employee assume to be asked to act against the best interest of TDF. Do you really want to imply that?
Those seems to be questions that a staff policy would formalize. Are you thus asking for one to be implemented? It did not appear so up to now to be honest. If you indeed want that you really need to help with the answers, not just the questions though.
(As a sidenote: That employees have to answer to people of flesh and blood isnt at all outragous. Those only bound by abstract ideas are never employees, but either owners or elected representatives.)
I find it quite irritating that feedback from employees of TDF here asks for outside moderation of some kind. Why? Because there has not been a constructive engagement so far with the original challenge presented by the board. There are very obviously deep problems with regards to execution and alignment of TDF staff, but there have been no proposals on how to improve on that by employees here.
If there:
such external moderation might be promising.
But none of those conditions are met: No constructive alternatives have been provided by staff. Instead, it seems staff seems to deny the very need to even improve anything.
Moderation or “facilitated discussion” will never find a solution with a party that rejects to even commit on the goal.
Best,
Bjoern
Hi Florian,
Indeed; please don’t forget this and this replie to your previous post.
Someone looking from a distance, will notice various elements in this topic: few posts with actual input and some interaction around that; various people asking for more time to give input, that they got; or expressing concerns, that are answered and for which extra checks are added; people understanding or supporting the rationale; others with questions on the process etc.
Some who speak up against having a policy, state that this topic is clearly supporting that. A neutral external will notice that all sides are represented, and likely wonders at the resistance.
Only a tiny portion of the content is relevant for the work on the draft policy. And while of course the link is shared with the people that help (as mentioned earlier too), I really wonder what could be an idea behind possibly not sharing this topic. Sensible people will be able to quickly distinct between what is relevant and what not. Foremost, if certain ideas would have been hold back in informing the law firm, these will obviously be brought forward while working on the draft.
The relation to the staff policy looks a bit far-fetched to me.
The only member of staff that has his review done by directors, is the ED. The involvement of the ED in individual tenders up until now only is administration tasks. It is easy to change that, and above all weird to assume that administrative tasks for tendering could have such an impact on executing separate tenders, that it can play any role in the judgement on the ED’s performance - since that is the suggestion that is hidden in the question asked…
Of course there are the insinuations that directors had undue influence on tendering - that’s is to be expected in this populist epoch. The only thing one may expect, is that the board points out the responsibility for executing tenders that are lined up, and for which the money is both available and must be spent, which is about managing the work (and doing the administration).
I think what (you think) you have read is a misunderstanding. In any case, the question only puzzles me.
So naturally this question similarly confuses me.
A policy covers staff and board. The CoC covers all trustees, including members of the team and the board. Someone in the role of lawyer, is not affected by this. The only distant but not related topic that I can think of, is the special position of a lawyer that is both advising TDF and also trustee.
Furthermore, I don’t expect a law firm to help with policy containing anything that limits the board in legal consultation. Apart from that: good and clear communication and relations, are of course important to all processes, with legal council, for board and staff, and among trustees.
By statues the board is representing TDF and works in the best interest of TDF. Of course, whatever the board decides, must be within the boundaries of charitable and overall civil law of Germany. So if the ED is doing his work, all should be fine.
Furthermore it helps to see a board staff policy in the context of all other rules relevant to TDF. E.g. in the extreme there might be a clear liable situation, each one with knowledge of that, is expected to report that. Therefore when new activities are explored, it is expected (and appreciated) that all involved (board, ED, possibly other team members) help to prepare decisions within the boundaries that apply. Nothing in any policy should be hindering that.
Someone working for the board is expected to execute what the board asks unless: see before.
TDF’s work contracts explicitly say, that the only authorized to direct staff, are the board (and the ED, for subordinate staff). The board is the only body able to (collectively) decide on the direction and execution of foundation matters.
In any case not starting cooperating closely with a director, who represents personal preferences, against the board.
Democratic decision-making means that, when there is no consensus, the majority decides. In the current board one director (who happens to almost never change his mind nor compromise) apparently considers it his privilege to fight board decisions and the execution thereof. Despite sweet talks and framing, this is clearly contrary to the foundations democratic and meritocratic principles.
The current context is the following: more time for input was asked, but with that given, there’s still no/hardly input. Where people that fiercely oppose even the idea of a policy, now ask for other steps, delaying the start. Therefore the rationale of following these suggestions, does not look great. There is for example no guarantee that constructive cooperation will start with facilitated meetings.
On the other hand, continuing the current process means: create a draft, make sure that people can engage, and then with all clearly spelled out, look if alternatives exist. The simplest, fastest and most inclusive way forward.
Finally: to me the questions handled above reflect clearly different thoughts and feelings on various topics and also on how roles are currently defined - but of course I may be wrong.
Best,
Cor
Hi Cor and all,
in the current context it is clear that carrying on regardless will not help at all in rebuilding trust.
Up to now we have seen from various comments and the actions by 2 directors that the focus of the policy is:
Also the briefing provided to a law firm which responds only to Cor and Thorsten, confirming a very biased handling of the process, lists roughly the same line of thoughts.
By choosing to initially call it “Staff-Board” policy it was clear that the intent was to write something that would remove some “blockers” so that “the board” would push decisions without scrutiny and pretending to have them executed by members of staff regardless of the damage those decision would do to TDF and the community.
That shows a board that isn’t trying to do its best to improve things, to contrary, it shows that it wants to impose rules to the team so that it can keep being as dysfunctional as it is now.
Anyone scrutinising or criticising what some directors want to push despite being problematic is labelled as “political” actions or “politicizing” the issues and in a way or another he/she will be the recipient of retaliatory actions or calls/emails/messages to “explain” things.
It’s at least a year that proponents of this policy organised a shadow board, excluding 2 directors, so that they pass on the marching orders without scrutiny. Then, the very few times it happens, when these participants are asked why they took these decisions they can’t coherently explain why or some unethical background stories, which should invalidate the decision, come up. But “the board” votes for something or ignores other votes, even when they are recommended through legal advice, and things carry on like that.
If the board started with an anti-harassment policy, the adoption of fiduciary duties (so that all directors actually take informed decisions and refrain from influencing decisions while in CoI), board members agreement and code of ethics then there might not be a need for a policy for a team that wouldn’t have any reason to complain.
That’s simple but “the board” doesn’t seem to be interested in rules that makes it less dysfunctional and focuses only on avoiding scrutiny and criticism from the team which might look at orders also as members of the board of trustees providing a last line of defence for decisions that, as demonstrated in the past, were lacking of the necessary due diligence.
Once again I call for the members of the board that have been incapable of explaining why we need such a policy to attentively review the background information that led to their decision and consider if they actually took an informed decision.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for providing additional examples of your sweet talks and framing.
One of the items explained that the policy will help with, is making sure that things that look as conflicts will not get stalled and then exploited in a public debate as perceived harassment.
I suggest that the board combines the fiduciary duties (that as explained need more intelligence than your raw cut & past work that oversees what fits TDF) with clear rules for directors behavior, so that the boards effectiveness is no longer affected by a director who apparently considers it his privilege to fight board decisions and the execution thereof. Future boards will be grateful to us for solving that.
Let’s keep it at your ‘inability’ to understand 
Ciao,
Cor
Hi,
At least when you write heavy allegations like:
one would hope you would have good documentation to back that up, because otherwise it could easily be libel or slander[1].
Lets see how the close reasoning here looks like that you assume will keep you from being liable in such ways:
And … that’s it: You are arguing anyone calling something “staff-board policy” MUST have nefarious intent, because …
hmm, wait that is entirely non-sequitur. Are you always as careless with the tasks of your position as you are here?
Now the rest of your post contains more accusations and lots of non-sequitur, but lacks any kind of constructive leadership, so @cornouws response was likely the better reply.
Could you – next time – for the sake of the audience here attempt to avoid such a situation by at least providing some substance and less of conclusions that lack it?
Best,
Bjoern
[1] Or course, conclusive reasoning in arguments would be appreciated in general, not only when it risks being “ueble Nachrede” otherwise.
Hi Paolo, maybe one day we will be able to know what your interests are, not just hear you talking about the interests of others. Possibly I’m wrong, but it seems to me that LOOL is behind this rage.
Once again, it is necessary for the board to make decisions urgently.
We cannot continue in this stagnation, which only delays the indispensable evolution of the project.
There are too many challenges to face to spend time on quarrels of personal interests.
Hi Miguel,
Sorry if there is confusion, but there is no stagnation. The board is taking a bit more time for this project, so that team members who want to contribute, have an extra opportunity to do so.
As written: the information has been shared with the company helping us with drafting. So I hope that in a week or so there will be something to look at.
Cor