This is rather reminiscent of faction-partisan patterns from the last BoD, but this time with Cor on the receiving end. While I can’t deny a bit of schadenfreude in him getting a taste of the medicine he gleefully fed others - it was unfortunate then and is unfortunate now.
(Have some comments on other parts of that message but resisting the temptation to expand the scope of this thread.)
appreciate the humor and agree with your dislike.
But pls allow me to point out that before I/we put something to vote, usually there were discussions of weeks or more (going round in loops often, larded with person attacks and framing). There’s one case where it took already multiple months before there was agreement on a compromise and then with acting on that people changed their minds and it took another 2 or 3 months before we found a solution…
So I don’t see myself particularly as a reason for the change towards less compromising in the governance of our community.
Hi Italo,
Interesting that you were surprised to see my candidacy related to the, despite the all-clean setup new board, - apparently - still ongoing audit.
Audits must be run very well, and the board needs to cooperate closely with staff to make sure that all needed information is provided and the MC (representing the trustees) needs to look at that the board is doing that fair (and for sure staff could help spotting places where that maybe is not the case, if there were any). The board should not be left in the dark and the MC’s involvement should be more than a formal one where e.g. simple questions about progress of the audit could not be answered. (Notice any difference?)
An audit is serious, but there is no need to make it bigger than it is.
In case some topic comes at table in which there would be a CoI on my side, our procedures give the simple and clear way to handle.
Mind that in my candidacy I stated that my focus would be on core MC tasks, caring for the members.
Please allow me to state that I wonder why the resolution from the board used the words “legal matters also involve the past actions of the candidate” and not a common expression as e.g “cover the period that the candidate was director”??
The boards wording perfectly fits the badmouthing and character assassination that’s going on against me since more than two years, and in painting it all as drama and ‘caused by bad actions of…’
Possibly you are a victim of that too, which I could not blame you for, but…
Short: it’s hard to believe that my candidacy could create additional issues. One additional request however: if something causes you to be incredibly surprised, please don’t wait weeks, in which crucial procedural moments pass, to contact me.
What you are writing can be read as if you are suggesting that I’m not speaking the truth, that I’m willfully misleading my fellow members. I hope that is not the case.
But this situation is a new experience for you: it is coincidence and I can simply declare that under oath. To explain: it was already for some time that Michael and me both didn’t feel that our cooperation really made us happier people, so I decided to quit. As simple and human as it is, it is no one’s else business either.
Indeed, coincidentally it made it possible for me to stand for the MC. Being a member of the MC is a role that I know very well (9 or 10 years? in the past) and would love to fulfill (apparently carrying support from a large part of the community.)
I hope you do not support changing the rules during or after the game?
I’m sorry for what was confusing, but I tried my best and expect that my reply to Sophie is just clear.
It is noticeable that also the boards resolution says that I “rejected to answer the questions”. That is an incomplete and incorrect reference to what I wrote and denying the fact that I gave information.
The fact that I didn’t reply to the specific questions one by one, is for good reasons and doesn’t mean that I didn’t give the necessary information? I think I did, and even expressed in public that I’m open to look at questions left etc.
If you write that ‘I refused to provide clarification about the affiliation’ I’m wondering if you have missed one my mails Italo, or that the ongoing badmouthing about me, makes that people don’t believe my word… which is, looking at the basic rules in our community, quite problematic.
Greetings,
Cor
As I’m cited as “incredibly tough, inflexible & aggressive people.” I will reply that in the world I live in, you can’t be judge and party.
Meaning that:
And I would have the same opinion and action for any other director who was in the previous board.
I’ve an ethic, and when a person is not able to manage correctly an issue about his affiliation, when this person was part of a board that left the foundation with several severe issues impacting its future, when again this person has a big conflict of interest if elected, then I can’t just let it go.
And I’m not happy at all to have to take this kind of decision, but the role of the board is to prevent further damages to the foundation.
Your (personal) vote, and your (collective) action might well case the TDF not to pass its audit for 2024; or otherwise be perceived by German authorities as mis-conducting itself. The situation with Emiliano last year was a walk in the park compared to manipulating MC elections.
And let’s not forget the fact that you continue to hide the relevant documents and articles of communication from us.
Anyway, bottom line: @sophi, please reverse your vote on the decision to retroactively-disqualify Cor.
Hi Michael,
First of all, I want to make it clear that I respect everyone’s opinion.
My aim with this email is to share my considerations.
1 - The current board is working hard to be as transparent as possible with the community, as far as we are legally allowed.
2 - My vote was based on discussions on the board email list and an extraordinary board meeting attended by the legal adviser. The summary of all the information resulted in the email to the directors for a vote. I stand by my vote in the conviction that Mr. Cor Nouws has presented an irresponsible and toxic candidacy for the MC.
3 - It is important to note that the board has legal advice, i.e. a professional who knows the German statutes and laws.
4 - The majority of the board follows the line of ethics and respect for the statutes and German law.
5 - The majority of the board works in the best interests of TDF and the LibreOffice project. The other board members, on the other hand, are apparently on the board to serve interests that are neither TDF’s nor LibreOffice’s.
6 - The majority of the board is working to correct the errors made by past boards members. There are many. This has been a very big challenge because unfortunately, when these members and those of the previous board are presented with the wrongdoing, then comes the classical tactics of denials, truculence, and, ultimately, harassment.
7 - Michael, I think there is a terrible mistake and I find your discourteous deconstructive and delusional comment regrettable. First, I don’t have your phone number in my address book. Second, I answered a call in a cordial manner and if it was you on the call, I had no idea and thirdly, my battery died. Since you mentioned calling me, what was the purpose of your call?
I live in a country devastated when guys like Bolsonaro ruled. I know where it brings us when they are in the inner circle. Do yourself a favor, don’t call Trump here, you don’t’ know what that means.
Finally, as mentioned, we will organize a townhall meeting to answer questions from the community.
Best,
Eliane Domingos
Can the board please share the legal advice? If I read various contributions correct, there are two.
Thanks,
Cor
Exactly who are you referring to here, Eliane?
That is exactly what Paolo has been writing almost on a daily basis for more than two years about Thorsten and me in mostly internal mail, but also in public, and without doubt at other places.
Therefor I as well wanted to ask you, Eliane, based on what information you are stating that?
5 - The majority of the board works in the best interests of TDF and the LibreOffice project. The other board members, on the other hand, are apparently on the board to serve interests that are neither TDF’s nor LibreOffice’s.
I personally do not agree with the second sentence. I think that the BoD members who have voted differently have different POVs on the topic, which are perfectly legitimate. Even the BoD members who have voted in favour have different POVs, and have taken the decision based on what they thought was more significant for their opinions.
Oh, you think Eliane is referring to this vote and thus to me?
If that is the case it is a preposterous and defamatory statement and I demand @elianedomingos withdraw the comment (which I have had to correct her saying before) and apologise, as I am most definitely only motivated by what is best for LibreOffice and TDF taking the full perspective and overall community into account.
I want to make it clear that I respect everyone’s opinion.
… except if they are board members who vote against what you support, in which case you define them as “serving interests that are neither the TDF’s nor LibreOffice”. That is to say, you’re not actually respecting everyone’s opinion, you’re just stating that you do. If it were very clear, you would not need to “make it very clear”.
By Section 8.3.c of the bylaws, you must publish “the discussions … of the… Board of Directors”. Please publish that discussion. If it was just idle and non-binding chatter, then don’t publish it, but then you cannot claim it as the basis for your decision to vote in favor of this proposal.
You’re reminding me of how the courts in Israel treat Palestinian political prisoners. They typically phrase their decisions saying something like “Meaningful information shared with the court by the accusing party [i.e. the state, bringing in someone from the secret service to speak to the judge] leaves no doubt of the need to oblige the request for administrative detention / denial of bail / legitimacy of the arrest etc.” - information always hidden from the public.
No, you don’t have legal advice that says you can retroactively disqualify Cor after not having objected to his election. I am guessing you are either misreading or misrepresenting whatever advice you have been given.
Please. You people are routinely breaking the statutes by hiding important information from the trustees, and completely ignore complaints about this. Your behavior is very reminiscent of the ruling coalition on the previous board, who had a great image of themselves and the legitimacy of their actions - which unfortunately did not survive scrutiny by the authorities, e.g. in the case of Emiliano’s dismissal or with the audit.
You need to start respecting election outcomes and stop treating the TDF like it’s a toy for you to play with.
I want to also call on the outgoing MC here: @vmiklos , @deneb_alpha , @gbpacheco , @gponzo and @uwealtmann , and deputies @Shinji_Enoki @bvarga91 , @haris . We’ve not heard a peep from you on this matter (other than a side-comment by Uwe). Please make your voices heard and your opinion known.
I’m far from happy with the result, it’s the first time I hear about this 3 months cool-off period and I try to follow this forum and other similar mailing lists. Though, reading that page at Board of Directors Rules of Procedure - The Document Foundation Wiki, the bullet point above says: “TDF employees are barred from holding or seeking elected position in TDF.” So if this is a wiki page that actually matters, how was that point ignored during the elections last year?
Thank you for confirming that during the past term I put a lot of efforts in trying to get the 2 persons leading the board to understand that what they were doing, in my opinion, was creating more issues than what they were supposed to solve.
It is very unfortunate that the current board has to spend so much time in going through lots of documents, legal statements and email threads to take informed decisions and fix things that could have been fixed 2 years ago. It is a long process to evaluate all the evidence and take in consideration all PoVs, even those that sometimes seem to diverge from the well documented reality that is in front of us, but we are getting there and we will have dealt with the most urgent matters very soon.
It is also very unfortunate that this board had to take an unpleasant majority decision that sparked debates that go in all directions while ignoring the reasons and the rules that have been followed.
Some say that the board or others should have spoken out when Cor presented his candidature but is it really the right moment to do that?
There is a challenging phase on purpose for challenging the election process and the candidates.
The board has to evaluate the challenges presented during that period and that’s what the board did.
It took longer than the board wished for but the decision presented shows many of elements we had to take in consideration in the evaluation of the challenges received for the candidate.
The board was fully aware that there would have been debates with this decision as there would have been equally intense debates if we presented a decision showing exactly the same elements we had to take in consideration and decided not to apply the same rules.
If the board decided for the latter then not only we would have been criticised by the board of trustees for preferential treatment for a candidate but we would have been criticised also by auditors and supervisory authority for allowing a candidate with clear conflicts on many matters the MC has to deal with. As we have already enough issues deriving from the in/actions of the previous board to deal with it is not wise to add more to the list. Voters, in light of the information provided, should consider if they should be more upset that the candidate they voted for has not been elected or if they would be more upset with having a board that turns a blind eye and causing even more issues for TDF and the community.
Ciao
Paolo
Now that you mention it, that is an interesting point…
Although - those are BoD internal rules of procedure, they are not binding for trustees as such; that is, the BoD cannot restrict such criteria for trustees beyond what the statutes indicate. On the other hand, I suppose the BoD could have used its power as an employer to forbid BoD candidacies by employees. Technically, it chose to ignore its rules of procedure on this point.
Note, though, that there’s a difference between BoD elections and MC elections, and that is the fact that the BoD manages the latter. It’s still rather questionable for candidacy criteria to be put forth in internal BoD rules-of-procedure (especially where the candidates are typically not BoD members when running).
Edit: See my post below regarding §8.4 of the bylaws.
So, none of you five presented any challenges to the candidacy. You cannot challenge it ex-post-facto.
You would not have been criticized by the auditors for faithfully managing the elections. Now, it is likely you will be criticized, if not worse, for undermining TDF institutions and trying to evade ovesight. (Not that the MC has been doing a very good job of it, but still.)
The voters considered everything, and voted. And now you are claiming the authority to overrule them and choose the composition of the body overseeing the BoD.
That is a ridiculous dichotomy, @PaoloVecchi . You have no idea who voted for whom, and most probably, those who favored other candidates over Cor are just as upset about your undermining of the elections. Not to mention how many people may have placed both Jona and Cor high on their list of preferences. And again, this is all beside the point.
to quote myself…
to expand: which? by whom? regarding what or whom?
(and by the way: was there any challenges in the past at any vote?)
Additionally, it is unclear whether a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the candidate and the company exists. The board is aware that such NDAs could exist and could bind the candidate for several years, longer than one term in the membership committee.
Companies must protect its privacy, its customers/partners data …
If a quitting bank employee, would give out my personal bank related data… i would not be happy…
Therefore many NDAs usually last forever. (they would not, if they would be able to erase it from our mind 
)
I worked for my Country Government for 2 years… you can imagine how big was its NDAs … and how seriously they handled it. and it was not for evil purpose.
And sure i worked for nearly 10 companies (in 25 years) before i joined to Collabora. Every company had NDA.
Suddenly i cannot even imagine what kind of company does not need any NDA.
I thought the more experience just made me better… but now i start to feel other.
Does that mean that I or anyone else who ever worked for a company, cannot serve TDF in future?
So, I has another look at section §8.4 in the statutes, which is referenced as an example in Eliane’s initial post.
Tasks of the Board of Directors
…
§8.4 The Board of Directors prevents possible conflicts of interest within the foundation. It ensures therefore that a maximum of one third of the members of the … Membership Committee … are employed at the same firm, organization or entity or one of its affiliate organizations. It can exclude one member of the body each month until the conflict of interest is eliminated
Suppose the BoD had not considered Cor disqualified and he were certified as an MC member. Remember also, that Pranam Kumarbhai Lashkari is an employee (or affiliate) of Collabora. The BoD could claim that Cor is strongly affiliated with Collabora - so much so as to legitimize a removal of one of these two members from the MC in favor of one of the deputies.
Now, the funny thing is that this cannot be done before Cor is recognized as a legitimate candidate, and as having been elected - so the BoD would need to retract its current decision, or acknowledge ecognized as invalid.
We have to realize that our statues read wrt affiliation:
“at the same firm, organization or entity or one of its affiliate organizations.”
The binding German version is even clearer:
“für dieselbe Firma, Organisation oder Einheit oder einer ihrer Tochterorganisationen als Angestellte arbeiten.”
So no, I do not work for Collabora or a daughter company and am not affiliated.
Since our CoI policy (still looking as WIP) pays much attention to personal interest (think of family income) additionally I wrote this to Sophie:
" Further: I know that in practice (sometimes?) the rule was used that someone’s income should not be for one third or more coming from a company. That is indeed not the case for me, not at all; not directly, nor via a contract between me or my company and Collabora would there be any. " (see above here)
And that would have been perfectly possible - if necessary.
I also clearly stated that I’m (of course) willing to look at possible questions - would there be left…