[DECISION] Offer AppStore LibreOffice for a fee

[floeff]

Hello,

the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-07-11, 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 5 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.

The vote is quorate.

Result of vote: 4 approvals, 0 abstain, 1 disapproval.

**Decision: The proposal has been accepted.**

Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order):

Caolán, Cor, László, Paolo, Thorsten

Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Dear board,

thanks for the feedback, was good to let the discussion run for a bit
longer. I'm putting this for an email vote now, lasting the usual 72
hours from now on (such that directors on vacation can participate):

Motion:

   TDF to offer LibreOffice as a paid product in both Apple's Mac Store,
   as well as Microsoft's Windows Store. Initial prices to be taken from
   the last offers the ecosystem licensees had set, with regular
   reporting and reviews to the board (at least quarterly).

This is the first step to get the apps out. Oversight group, further
work, marketing & development needs we should discuss in the following
weeks.

Florian

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi all,

just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite a few reasons.

As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see similar issues:
    - discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day where people are busy with their day job
    - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent during the discussion period
    - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent also in the vote process
    - Most push backs from objections coming from representatives of publishers of their own products based on LibreOffice
    - No evaluation or statements of potential CoIs have been made so not clear if publishers should have voted abstain
    - IMHO the chairman, as director of a company publishing its own products based on LibreOffice, 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 being present or not.

Here we have also the additional issue that it is not clear what we have voted for as there hasn't been a proper discussion on the implications of the vote.

Eg. is the price set by previous licensees right for TDF, what entitlements does it include, shouldn't we have done at least some testing with a free version, etc..

I have shared many questions with the board which hopefully will soon receive answers so that the situation will be clearer.

While it's since 2020 that I push for TDF to publish LibreOffice in the app stores, and I believe we should have (also) a paid version, I can't +1 that text as the issues it might bring have not been clarified.

Ciao

Paolo

[cornouws]

Hi,

Hi all,

just to let you know that this time I'm the one that voted -1 for quite a few reasons.

As for the LOOL archival vote, for which I refused to vote, I see similar issues:

Indeed. Recently you already tried to reopen the vote on LOOL. You got a reply to that here: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00746.html You didn't reply / take notice /* it seems.
Instead you're doing the same here with another board decision..

- discussion period of 24h too short as it covers one working day where people are busy with their day job
    - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent during the discussion period
    - Objection and comments disregarded by the proponent also in the vote process

If the majority of the board votes in favor, the board agrees. It is known that you are not happy here. Try to live with it and not repeatedly spoil precious time and good will by starting debates on closed votes.
I've tried to explain you this before. Even several times. Sadly you didn't respond to that or just ignore and do the same again..

- Most push backs from objections coming from representatives of publishers of their own products based on LibreOffice

Lacking any reasonable relation between the one and the other, the decision for TDF starting to publish in the app stores is just passed, this seems to be one of the infamous passive accusations.

- No evaluation or statements of potential CoIs have been made so not clear if publishers should have voted abstain

To start with, this is not in line with the CoI policy.
Then it is again an statement showing that we really need to look at that topic. I already asked for doing so at our LibOCon in Milan.

- IMHO the chairman, as director of a company publishing its own products based on LibreOffice, should have declared a potential CoI and

Lacking any reasonable ground for that, in as well the CoI policy as well as in practice, this looks as a false accusation and abuse of the policy again..

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 being present or not.

Here we have also the additional issue that it is not clear what we have voted for as there hasn't been a proper discussion on the implications of the vote.

If the majority of the board votes in favor, the majority of the board is fine with content, discussion, information available.. (Before repeating myself: see above for the rest.)

...

Seeing that we are in a position where we need to get together, grow understanding, find common grounds, I think a mail with passive accusation, insinuation, disrespect for board procedures, ... does not belong on this list.

Therefore I really think that it is needed that this type of mail is not moderated through.

If you would write something as
    "I voted against because I consider this or that more or less important, or .." other reason related to the content of the decision,
that would be perfectly fine to me.
I suggest there's been more then enough explanations, also in careful, friendly, winsome ways, about your dominant style of communication?

So again, I regret that it has been moderated through in this form. I will further discuss this in the board internally.

Cheers,
Cor