[DECISION] award text layout tender to Collabora

Board Discuss
#1

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private today, is now made public in accordance with our statutes.

The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.

A total of 4 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 3 votes.

TDF published the text layout tender at https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2021/12/08/tender-to-optimize-text-layout-performance-for-print-and-pdf-export-202112-01/

We received two bids, in order of arrival:

[..]

Looking at the budget, we planned in a total of 30.000,00 € (incl. VAT).

[..]

The proposal from the tender group is to accept Collabora's offer.

I therefore call for the following VOTE:

1. accept Collabora's offer as attached

2. authorization of Florian Effenberger to sign the contract on behalf of TDF

The vote runs for 72h from now on.

Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 0 disapprovals.
One deputy supports the motion.

Decision: The proposal has been accepted.

Florian

#2

Hello,

two questions:
a) who has participated in the voting?
b) who has participated in the decision about the budget item and its
amount?

I think this information is important according to the CoI rules of TDF.

Regards,
Andreas

#3

Hi Andras,

Thanks for your mail and interest.

two questions:
a) who has participated in the voting?
b) who has participated in the decision about the budget item and its
amount?

I think this information is important according to the CoI rules of TDF.

As BoD we are always focused on working conform the rules, including CoI, and in a respectful way. You know that in the board we are pretty keen on that.
Sharing details on how we complied to a subset of the rules, for in this case tenders, is odd IMO. And also adding extra layers of administration etc. of which I'm not a great fan.

I hope you can understand this,

Greetings,
Cor

#4

Hi!

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:32 PM Cor Nouws <cor.nouws@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

Andreas Mantke wrote on 08/03/2022 18:34:

two questions:
a) who has participated in the voting?
b) who has participated in the decision about the budget item and its
amount?

I think this information is important according to the CoI rules of TDF.

As BoD we are always focused on working conform the rules, including
CoI, and in a respectful way. You know that in the board we are pretty
keen on that.
Sharing details on how we complied to a subset of the rules, for in this
case tenders, is odd IMO. And also adding extra layers of administration
etc. of which I’m not a great fan.

While I agree with the principle you’re stating here Cor, I have to agree with Andreas that the Trustees need to see who moved the motion, who participated in the discussion and who voted.These are normal parts of the minuting of Board meetings and since the vote in question appears to have been taken by secret e-mail this information is absent from the minutes we have seen so far. It thus seems entirely reasonable to request these details, even if the full rationale is not made public (which would also be preferable). If it remains sensitive, advise the Trustees on the mailing list created for that purpose. Continuing to withhold them will make people think there’s something to hide, and I am sure that’s not the case.

Cheers

Simon

#5

Hi Cor,

Hi Andras,

Thanks for your mail and interest.

two questions:
a) who has participated in the voting?
b) who has participated in the decision about the budget item and its
amount?

I think this information is important according to the CoI rules of TDF.

As BoD we are always focused on working conform the rules, including
CoI, and in a respectful way. You know that in the board we are pretty
keen on that.

Once I read your answer I'm not fully convinced that the whole board is
following the rules of compliance wholeheartedly.

Sharing details on how we complied to a subset of the rules, for in
this case tenders, is odd IMO. And also adding extra layers of
administration etc. of which I'm not a great fan.

I hope you can understand this,

Sorry, but I see no reason here why the participants of the decision
making had to be hidden in the wardrobe.

And I think it is no good governance, if those, who decide on the amount
of budget items, (or their employer or contractor) bid on such budget items.

Regards,
Andreas

#6

Hello,

the 4 full board members participating in the vote were non-bidders. In alphabetical order: Caolán, Emiliano, László and Paolo.

As for the 2021 budget, find the vote result at https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00091.html

Florian

#7

Hello,

Hello,

the 4 full board members participating in the vote were non-bidders.
In alphabetical order: Caolán, Emiliano, László and Paolo.

As for the 2021 budget, find the vote result at
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00091.html

are there comprehensible reasons why the voters on the budget items are
hidden in the wardrobe?

Regards,
Andreas

#8

Hi Andreas,

the 4 full board members participating in the vote were non-bidders.
In alphabetical order: Caolán, Emiliano, László and Paolo.

As for the 2021 budget, find the vote result at
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00091.html

>

are there comprehensible reasons why the voters on the budget items are
hidden in the wardrobe?

  Is there a reason you're particularly concerned about this item and not previous ones reported in the same way ?

> Once I read your answer I'm not fully convinced that the whole board
> is following the rules of compliance wholeheartedly.

  Are you satisfied that your concerns were baseless ? Do you have a good way to fairly judge people's hearts & minds ?

  One thing that interests me is that the final sum is not included in the public decision; that might be something to consider for the future - I see no really good reason why it shouldn't be.

  Regards,

    Michael.

#9

Hi Michael, all,

Hi Andreas,

the 4 full board members participating in the vote were non-bidders.
In alphabetical order: Caolán, Emiliano, László and Paolo.

As for the 2021 budget, find the vote result at
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2021/msg00091.html

>

are there comprehensible reasons why the voters on the budget items are
hidden in the wardrobe?

Is there a reason you're particularly concerned about this item
and not previous ones reported in the same way ?

I would have asked in the same way but I was busy with other projects.
The question apply to all decisions where  one (or more than one) member
of the board is linked to the contractor. Thus the information should be
given on every decision taken in private.

And the concerns apply to all similar contracts / decisions.

I'm happy to read about the participants of the budget decision. It's
not about good or bad in detail. It's about the issue that it is not a
process of good governance, if some participants possibly have interests
on both sides of one table.

One thing that interests me is that the final sum is not included
in the public decision; that might be something to consider for the
future - I see no really good reason why it shouldn't be.

+1

Regards,
Andreas

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.