You can say “you’re wrong” again as much you like, but it is what it is.
One might also ask how come an officer of the TDF would try to justify going above the heads of the trustees with such a move. But - I’ve seen how you and our current BoD act, and your continued disregard for the trustees, the statutes, basic legal principles and of course the welfare of this community, so I won’t bother.
even without counting on the legal advice received
You keep talking about your vaunted legal advice, but people routinely breaking the statutes, and not the laws, claiming to hold secret legal indulegence are just further mockery of our community, which you continue to trample as a usurping junta.
As a member of this community, my welfare is not improved in any way by getting to read the hyperbolic accusations you’re throwing at the (remarkably patient) people trying to sort out TDF’s legal troubles.
If you want to make a legal argument in good faith, maybe try not phrasing it in the most inflammatory way possible?
They’re not “trying to sort out” legal issues, they are busy creating legal issues, which are getting progressively worse. Think of the cul-de-sac they have put us in:
and this legal limbo in the foundation is in addition to tearing our community in half and driving away most of our veteran developers.
Now, you might say that this sounds inflammatory. And - I suppose it does, but that’s because there’s a fire burning, and it’s important to illustrate that fact.
I’m wondering if you are coming up with these statements because you couldn’t be asked to validate your assumptions or if you know that what you are stating is wrong and for some reasons you want carry on trying to mislead the community in this forum and in others eg. LWN.
The legal issues are sorted in the sense that we do have all the documents, legal statements and audits showing who has done what and you can read a brief summary of it in the email that members received the 10th of February.
These matters will soon be settled either with a mediation or, failing to reach an agreement on suitable compensation for damages, by the unavoidable next legal steps where all the gory details will be publicly available.
Hopefully the mediation will be successful so we can close this chapter and move on to focus on more productive things for TDF, LibreOffice and the community with the reassurance that the new Bylaws, Code of Ethics and Fiduciary Duties and the Conflict of Interest Policy will reduce to a minimum the risk of having people creating damages to TDF and the community.
In the meantime it would be great if you stopped coming up with accusations that a minimum amount of research prove to be false.
Thanks a lot Tuomas for the supportive words!
It is sad so much energy and time is wasted with these heated discussions. Being unhappy and disagreeing with decisions is one thing. However, such undue personal attacks and wrong statements render any factual interaction hard.
This board and me made many things public, shared many previously unpublished minutes and decisions, and went above and beyond to solve the legal situation, and support the community and the project at the same time.
I would love to see community members engaging in constructive discussions, not being vocal. It reminds me of that infamous session in Budapest, when literally no one from the crowd shared the strong statements, but things just went on and on. This was noted by many attendees, and seems a pattern I see also here.
Eyal, you have no supporters in your approach, or only very few. You do not speak on behalf of the community. The „we“ is „I“.
With your description of „junta“ and other terms, you not only make a fool out of yourself, but also wrongfully attack people who try to do something good for our community. Even worse, your words are an insult to anyone who has to live in an actual tyranny or dictatorship. You discredit yourself by using these comparisons.
I really would love to see you using your energy in a positive, constructive way. Pleae let me know how we can achieve this together.
While Eyal’s choice of words may be unfortunate, his point deserves more consideration than it is currently receiving. I understand why others may be hesitant to speak up, as those with contrary views are often treated poorly in this forum.
The view that the bylaws are valid can indeed be supported by logical arguments that seem legally defensible. However, it can also be argued - as Eyal does - that the statutes were not followed and that the bylaws are invalid. I find that line of argument more persuasive (which is why I opposed adoption of the bylaws) and fear that the Foundation is open to legal challenge on the matter - which might prove successful.
indeed …
Election Update Please
Moving forward: How we can unblock the situation together - #2 by fpy
support proper process and evaluations, instead of (too often) escaping in preferences, legacy, channels …
Which answer is missing? The cheque question has been answered, if I remember correctly?
This is the infamous Budapest meeting I was refering to, but their are neither recordings nor minutes, so I don’t know if I can answer any questions about it.
I spent myself countless days to publish minutes and decisions, shared internal knowledge, wrote onboarding howtos and even translated some of these, all of which you can see in this forum. Isn’t that exactly part of proper process and evaluations?
I’m a bit lost what you ask for. 
As one of the organizers: i requested recordings by TDF and stuff like additional microphones… The recording was done by my old mbp but we had never the possibilty to test the recording, hence the sound was not captured… The mintues would have been created based on the recording as you might know that a live typing is not optimal…
Just to be clear: thanks for the organizers and there willing to help: although the university didn’t provide anything although promosing, they organized some self made speaker-bass-box and we got some bluetooth mic by @arnaud.versini (all untested). Except the recording did work very well.