Hi Paolo,
Dear community,
for the record my rejection of the proposal as formulated has not been counted.
You did not participate in the vote. Full stop.
I repeatedly asked for various elements to be considered and to amend the text before being able to vote on it but that unfortunately hasn't happened.
Indeed, you've spent a lot of time to reopen the debate on the decision that was taken in the board meeting (the extended public part) last Monday. There was discussion about your ideas and that did not lead to any change.
My opinion is that the text doesn't take in consideration feedback and other issues which include:
- discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day where people are busy with their day job
It didn't appear to me that you had not enough time available to share your thoughts.
- vote started after less than 21h at 18:53 when people coming back from work could have had time to rush in a comment
24 hours after the meeting maybe, But hé, who cares 
- comments made during the meeting and in the mailing lists were not considered for inclusion in an actual compromise text
We extensively discussed and a compromise was accepted in the meeting.
- attempts to have an evaluation of the concerns expressed in time met no considerations
I think all your more then 10 mails received replies.
- some managed to provide their opinion only in the vote reply but still no corrective actions have been taken
We extensively discussed and a compromise was accepted in the meeting.
I have huge respect for the board members spending again time to discuss a decision already taken that you do not agree with.
- IMHO the chairman, as director of a company reselling COOL[0], should have declared a potential CoI and let the vice-chairman deal with the evaluation and inclusions of comments to make sure the process is seen by all as fully impartial regardless of actual CoIs.
Three remarks:
1. I hold strong (did mail this before) that this topic/vote is about having sane development projects under TDF umbrella. To prevent hosting zombi-projects, which will harm our reputation.
It is not about allowing or blocking people to work on what they love.
And it is not about a choice for TDF to publish a online version of LibreOffice.
2. It is without ground in our rules nor precedent that a potential CoI should exclude anyone from her/his role in our work.
3. Declaring people having a indirect CoI is becoming popular, it seems. It is clear from various examples, that the current CoI policy leads to lack of clarity and discussions. I think it makes sense to have a well prepared and organized discussion on this at LibOCon.
I could have simply voted against and found ourselves once again in the same split situation we had in the original vote and that's what I wanted to avoid.
You could have brought in that elegant thought on the board list
The main issues and missing elements I see in this proposal are:
... > Without the above IMHO the proposal will lead only to one outcome.
I refer to my comment above: no one is blocking anyone on working on the code and project they love.
If the conditions in the decisions are not met in three monts, the project will be atticizised.
If conditions for de-atticizations are met in four months (and those are the same..) the repository will be de-atticizised.
How beautiful and simple it that.
You could consider to stop spending time from yourself and others on this useless debate and instead do some constructive work on what you want to see happen in the future?
And - apart from what László explained earlier on this list about projects-dynamics - making sure that your place looks a fun one to be in, would probably be wise too.
Having said the above I ask to reconsider the decision and add it to the public part of the agenda for the next board meeting.
.
Cheers,
Cor
