So I guess you are complaining about the previous board as the process was started, apparently quite in a rush, with the intent of forming a small committee by the then chairperson.
Fortunately those opaque interests did not find their way in the current draft in which all the members of the BoD and all the members of the MC were free to participate, not just a small committee.
So the danger you are talking about has been avoided.
Even if you keep repeating that it doesn’t make it true.
I know you are still confused as you haven’t read the many explanations that have been provided on the matter.
To make it easier for you to understand in future now there is a new challenging phase to remove the candidates before the voting phase.
Candidates that, as was the case during the previous MC election, “violated the Statutes, Conflict of Interest Policy, Code of Ethics and Fiduciary Duties, or have shown behaviors that go against commonly recognized good management practices while performing their duties in TDF’s bodies or have misused TDF’s assets” will be removed from that first phase instead of the one present only after the voting as it has been done up to now.
the experience of various members of the BoD and MC that had to deal with many abuses not only of the statutes but also the laws. This is a good opportunity to use those lessons learned and clarify the rules to make it more difficult in future for people to damage TDF and its community.
That’s what was written also in the original draft
Where do you read that? If you think the process is not clear how would you improve it?
Where do you read that? If you think the process is not clear how would you improve it?
I believe it’s quite the opposite as now they’ll have to respect the Code of Ethics and Fiduciary Duties as well as the Conflict of Interest Policy.
I hope one day you’ll understand that releasing legal documents related to ongoing disputes is not beneficial to TDF as it’s not for any other organisation. Please do ask your lawyer.
You know the answer as this board published all the stuff it can including also what the previous board did not publish.
Are being taken care by the Conflict of Interests Policy and by their exclusion when deciding matters related to members of staff as this board has always done.
Here you once again demonstrate your ignorance on many facts. Members of staff have been badmouthed and harassed by members of the BoD in the past while they always acted professionally and with TDF best interests in mind. The ED is the person responsible for managing the team and has always done an excellent job at it despite the numerous attacks and backstabbing.
“See “Continuity of Membership” for the most common reasons for refusal.”
Where do you read that? The “Executive Director” section hasn’t changed much from the previous version of the draft.
Now that you went through general complaints would you mind also being a bit more positive tell us if there are improvements you could suggest?
