Actually, the results are what people voted for. If the BoD’s decision, retroactively-disqualifying Cor, is invalid (which I believe is the case), then - the results are as published earlier. And people have already made their “oaths of office”, including him. So actually, it’s a question of how the MC will act: Will the 4 other members choose to convene an MC with Cor as a member, bucking the diktat from the BoD, or will they choose to convene with Jona as a member. (Or you could take some kind of compromise involving both of them.)
This puts you - the four of you, and especially Jona - in a very uncomfortable position. Which the BoD should not have put you in.
You kindly provided 4 additional examples of your framing and blaming just in your post here… A habit that is hard for you to change, it seems. But let me focus on the content.
Though I wanted to comment on this, various others already pointed out why this thinking is fundamentally wrong and interferes with fundamental rights of the trustees.
The resolution doesn’t mention or indicate at all the submitting of a challenge… interesting, isn’t it?
So the conclusion then seems to be that the objections came from one or more directors, only after the elections outcome?
That would surprise me really. How would that process have looked like? What indications do you have for this?
Without reasonable proof, and with in mind how we handle conflicts of interest on specific topics, that as well has to be set aside as extremely unlikely. I remind there even was a sort of summary in your pledge on handling CoI’s .
As you know I have great respect for your perspective, experience, and general independence of mind - as well as your constructive approach for solving problems. Starting by getting the foundational basics right: listening to both sides. More than that - I’m really pleased that you support the integrity of other board colleagues even when they disagree with you.
Perhaps if there is an up-side here, it is the Trustees getting a better insight into how interaction and making decisions inside the board works, even if that is often dismaying. I hope we will soon start expanding our focus to consider the space of possible solutions to this growing mess - instead of seeing it some irreconcilable binary - but that requires more communication and mutual understanding.
I’m afraid it’s a bit late for tears.
I think you’re all in the loop as founders, elected representatives and former directors.
There is no higher authority that can help you, unless someone wants to take the matter to court. You have to find an arrangement that is a compromise. But of course declaring that you are a democratic organisation (which is what a non-profit organisation should be) and changing the result of the election is not what the members expect.
I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to cancel the election and start again on a sound basis.
I don’t think that’s necessary. The Board could instead choose to void its previous statement of results in view of feedback here, confirm the election in line with the democratic results and then refer the matter to the Trustees for resolution using the processes in the Statutes. That’s what I already proposed, but it’s been ignored unfortunately.
I’ve been a Member for long and met some people doing service for LO - Cor is one of them, from long ego, I voted for him. To see that my vote is nullified is awful and amounts to a coup.
As explained, if there were objective objections, that should have been in candidacy phase.
It is not informative for proper reasons to read elianedomingos 's frequently vague and incorrect and time-consuming TL explanations. They say she did some good for TDF, OK< but now seeing myself her action I do not think she is doing a favor to TDF, if TDF is for LO.
Surely the board elected by the trustees determine what is in TDF and LibreOffice’s interest and what is not? Hopefully they do that in a friendly, respectful and collaborative way.
I think this idea of a “single-best-way” that can be easily known ahead of deep discussion is quite polarizing and dangerous for non-trivial cases. We live in a complicated world, and the board gets all the most complex decisions on its plate: it is a lot for a volunteer board: thank you for serving us all there!
I hope all board members show up, behave openly, listen to others, and then hammer out durable and elegant compromises that are TDF’s position. I expect staff to support that process, and if this is working right - Trustees to encourage board members in their hard work.
On clarity - I think the situation was entirely clear here:
The questions are still not published for whatever reason; the clear ones I answered as shared; the ones that were poorly spelled, and/or sounded like they wanted me to inappropriately reveal confidential personal information about our (past) relationship you didn’t get an answer to.
I called you because I had no response to my E-mail in reply to an ask for help apparently from the board asking to clarify the situation, there was no MC elected, it looked like something silly was happening, and that seemed reason enough to reach out and talk.
It was only after I’d introduced myself and you had recognized my voice that you laughed, and then apparently your battery died. Perhaps I took you by surprise; if so - sorry! I messaged you on Telegram immediately afterwards suggesting talking at some stage - which was rapidly green-ticked - does that mean delivered ? if not read. I value your perspective, and it is always good to talk with you.
Why is important to reach out? surely communicating with people you disagree with is the way to learn & reconcile? it is most important in times like this.
What is your balance of time spent talking directly to people about including them vs. talking to lawyers to try to exclude them? or in a nutshell - did anyone bother to talk directly to Cor yet?
Apart from having a personal life, a family and a job (which in my case is not limited to The Document Foundation), we are trying to provide all the necessary information in a way which is understandable to everyone. Unfortunately, the situation is extremely complex, it is probably not entirely clear to all TDF Members, and in some cases is underestimated in its severity. To get the picture, I had to translate a 26-page legal document from German to Italian, get rid of all the legal redundancies, and make a summary by connecting all the dots. I will try to provide the same summary, but I need some time to draft the text.
Can the board please share this legal advise now?
(If it’s the same that Italo is talking about, then it’s of course appreciated that he’s translating that, but that does not mandate delaying sharing of the original, nor make it reasonable to not share now. After all, the decision, the comments here, my formal objection … it’s all English.)
Someone has to carry the burden, and I am the BoD member more used to communicate. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of the situation, explaining it in a simple way - in order to provide a sound rationale which can be understood without entering into all legal details - is challenging.
Let me try, and then we will see if I have been able to clarify the mess.
Please avoid making speculations about documents, directors, reasons, objectives or anything else before having read my post. I am in the process of writing it, and it will unfortunately take some time. By the way, I do not think that even former directors have ever read the document I am referring to, because it is just mentioned by the authors of one legal advice but is not explained in its fundamental details, and I think that this fact has created a large amount of intertwined misunderstandings that have carried on at least for the entire term of the formed BoD (but IMHO even before).
The document is of a paramount importance for this decision, but is not directly related to the decision. What I can anticipate, is that the document defines the environment of the current issues that TDF is facing, and as such inspires some guidance.
Unfortunately, looking at how perceptions - and related discussions - have developed during the last few years - this document has been overlooked by most people, who have read the legal summary - which could be misunderstood - and ignored the full text.
I suppose that most people would have done the same when looking at a 26-page-long sentence in German legalese. Only my Etruscan stubbornness (I was born in the heart of the Etruscan region) has forced me to spend two full days to fully understand, as there were dots which were not connecting in the entire situation.
Please be patient, I am writing the post. I will publish it as soon as I am happy with the contents (me, Italo Vignoli, and no one else). I will take the responsibility for the contents, which in any case will be based on factual evidence and not on speculations.
That should be reconsidered – at least in wording. The board does not determine election results, as per statutes the “Single Transferable Vote System unter Anwendung der Meek-Methode” will do that.
§ 8 (4) of the statutes has been referred too in this discussion quite a few times here, however only partially:
… Er kann monatlich jeweils ein Mitglied aus dem Organ ausschließen, bis der Interessenkonflikt beseitigt oder eine Neuwahl des Organs eingeleitet ist. Aus einem Gremium kann er zur Beseitigung des Interessenkonflikts die notwendige Anzahl von Mitgliedern ausschließen oder durch geeignete Personen ergänzen.
It is quite explicit in how the Board is enabled to resolve conflict of interest once it appears in a body of the foundation and gives explicit limits even on the scale of that. Note that the statutes do not list any other ways for the Board to act here, esp. not prior to joining a body of the foundation.
Leaving aside Cors candidacy here, It seems to me the Board put both Jona and Marco in very inconvenient position with this decision right from the start.
.