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.)
Appreciated @italovignoli , however I doubt it’s reasonable if you carry the burden of this all here!
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.
Were all the Directors able to understand the 26-page legal advice in German to take the decision?
1 Like
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).
Sorry @Italo, please excuse me, from the context I was understanding, that the document was at the basis of the decision.
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.
Hi all,
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.
Best,
Bjoern
2 Likes
Not only them, but also all newly-appointed, and re-newed TDF trustees, from the closing of the last quarter.
As of midnight, I am still working on the document. At the moment, I am too tired to continue writing. I will complete the document tomorrow morning, as soon as I can.
1 Like
Why would it? When you were on the BoD, you (personally and collectively) routinely hid legal opinions and other documents from us, and got away with it. Since assuming office, this BoD hides any number of important documents and communications from us, and practically nobody calls them on it.
We (and you) are eating the stew that we (and you) have cooked in previous years.
Have these been appointed/renewed by the outgoing MC or the incoming MC?
Hi,
I usually stay out of this things, but I found something interesting I wanted to share, related to:
So Eliane, in the candidate statement [1] you stated:
This may be outdated, but when I looked into the migration consultants list [2] you are listed to be working for “EDX Informatica” and you are listed on the web page you get following the link provided [3].
So my question is: Do you work for EDX Informatica?
[1] Candidacy to the elections of the TDF Board of Directors
[2] LibreOffice Certified Migration Consultants — The Document Foundation
[3] https://edx.srv.br/
2 Likes
- The documents asked for here, are used for making a decision that violates the rights of Trustees.
- Other documents were in the first place relevant for the Boards work (the most would have been unnoticed if not Paolo would have - selectively of course - leaked); documents that may become of wider interest if they are related to larger changes of the foundations rules/procedures, e.g. directly relevant for Trustees’ position or the activities of the foundation, or if a boards decision is reviewed/challenged by the Trustees.
Hi Italo,
Thanks for your extensive post reg. TDF and the foundations authority.
I’ll share some relevant information for that topic and also it does not answer the questions that your comment above here raised on my side. Could you be so kind to look at these.
With all interesting content (though important information is missing, I will share that later) the post does not explain why it was not possible to follow normal procedures. These TDF procedures allow for (as I point to in my Formal Objection handling a CoI in the MC composition (might it turn out that there is one) as well as managing a CoI around a specific topic.
So, you hold on to the counter-statutory assumption that the BoD gets to decide which documents the trustees should have and which they shouldn’t. Well, the current BoD thinks they’re not violating rights, and that the documents are not of wider interests, so they don’t disclose them - following perfectly in your footsteps.
In principle I don’t mind to share all information ultimately with the trustees; though obviously not on a public forum.
Then since how the foundation is set up part of the tasks is delegated to e.g. the Board, it is helpful to not constantly step into that as trustee.
If that is their position, it would be hard to maintain reading what the decision says wrt legal advise and around how it indeed violates the Trustees rights . But …
That’s what the BoD is telling us about its current decision.
Just like it was hard for us when you withheld documents.
TBH, this approach shows how you would not make a very good MC member, in my opinion. Your main “redeeming” quality would, in fact, be your factional animosity towards the BoD, which would demotivate you from just letting them get away with everything. Other MCs and MC members in the past seem to have done so in the spirity of harmony and friendship and working together, which is what I’m always worried is happening with oversight bodies (not just in the TDF). And of course, having a bone to pick is both a pro and a con for an oversight body member.
I don’t believe that the directors advocating and pledging openness and transparency will agree with you and therefore that they, for all to understand, will just share.
Hi Eliane,
Let me repeat what I asked during the session at LibOCon, since it has not been answered there.
Is the board ‘legally allowed’ (so not prohibited) to share the opinions of the two lawyers in this case?
If the answer is ‘no, not allowed’, can you provide the Trustees with 1. a written proof of that, and 2. a legal statement showing on what rights/grounds the Board intervened in the election outcome. In a situation where great caution is demanded, that must be available?
If the answer is ‘yes, not prohibited’, please do what you have repeatedly promised.
Thanks,
Cor
2 Likes