Definitely, this document does not represent the united view of the MC. At least, being an MC member, I do not agree with this doc.
Definition of a faction action: Anyone who engages or attempts to engage in violent action against a legally established government with the aim of provoking unrest. (source: FACTIEUSE : Définition de FACTIEUSE)
I promise that what I wrote in the document was solely for the good of the foundation, respecting its statutes and clarifying few topics. There was no attempt to engage in violent action against the foundation. And speaking of partisan, considering who I am, thatâs not the best term to use with me or those who remember the resistance in my country.
Thatâs a long time I and several FR community members wanted a document that clearly detailled the foundation organization, thatâs great to have it now, it will help new commers to understand how the foundation is working.
In light of what happened in previous years, with for (one) example TDCâs attempt to strip the foundation of its substance, it seems obvious to me that we must clarify how we have adapted the foundationâs governance to its new landscape and how, as advised by many of the consultants who advised us over the past years, we have modified its governance, and we have worked with Carlo Piana (Carlo Piana - Wikipedia) on this
However, I can understand that for Collabora, agreeing on a limit of their representation in the board of trustee could be difficult. But this request to protect the foundation from being taken over by a company, was and is very legit to me.
Iâm waiting for more feedback from the other native language communities as we have translated the document, but Iâm happy that finally, we have it done 
⊠what happened in the past few years that requires setting clear rules to avoid the repeat of the abuses that are well documented in legal statements, audits and behaviours that would be unacceptable in any organisation and even less within a Foundation such as ours, âyour failure to acknowledge that is significantâ.
I do understand that you might have been quite busy lately as you failed repeatedly to perform even your basic duty of voting for important administrative matters for TDF but then if you are completely unprepared on the matter at least abstain from making comments of that type.
If you also failed to make any positive contribution to the document for the past 11 months then you should be thankful to the members of the board and the MC that worked on it taking in consideration all the gaps in terms of rules and clarifications that allowed a few to create the legal mess you should know about.
Do you really see it necessary to use such a divisive language like others using the term âpartisanâ with whoever doesnât agree with their corporate view and interests?
If you have to resort to these types of linguistic tricks then you give the impression that you have nothing intellectually interesting to offer on the matter so you could have simply avoided that comment.
You are supporting statements that are factually incorrect and that is yet another failure to perform your basic duties.
As a member of the Board of Directors shouldnât you lead by example and show that you actually read and validate statements before supporting them?
I suppose my first answer clarifies why this would be a very unwise plan.
I donât know why you use words like that, but itâs obviously not about âlovingâ any kind of document. These things are necessary to fix TDF â to ensure healthy, independent governance of a non-profit in the future.
I donât âloveâ it. In fact, I wish we were never in this position. But given the situation we are in, after the previous Board terms, we have to make changes so that we can continue to run TDF for everyone, including in the interests of all the volunteers that help to make LibreOffice.
Hi Mike,
But in whose opinion? Like Eyal and others, I see many things in these bylaws that will break TDF even more. We need to open up to at least the Trustees for a full review. That doesnât mean posting a read-only document on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, it means discussing each section carefully and considering what is needed and why.
This is not binary. I am in favour of change, and indeed have requested bylaws be written. But these bylaws are not going to make things better. They include many problematic concepts such as terminating membership after just three months, ejecting Trustees on the basis of hearsay with no recourse to due process, excluding people because of their employer and more that are simply wrong and open to abuse.
TDF needs to include and give voice to more of its historic supporters - the one year renewals are already harmful - not fewer. There are definitely some bylaws needed - s 10(3) calls for one, so does s 12(5). Thatâs where we should start, and only add more once those are agreed by the trustees and passed by the board.
Cheers
Simon
Why are you saying this to me? I do not speak for Collabora, have never had a relationship with the company and have no interest in arguing for special treatment for them.