Dear @EyalRozenberg,
have you realised that you are attacking a sentence where I state clearly that fellow board members should speak out publicly if they believed there were issues with a decision or even the process leading to it?
Is that the attitude you really want to fight against?
Maybe you should slow down a bit, actually read what it has been written here and then evaluate if your attacks are justified?
Maybe waiting a bit for answers or do a quick search could have provided you with the information showing that your attack is completely unjustified?
The answer to your questions is publicly available for all to see:
TDF is a member of OSBA:
which in turn is a member of APELL.
In the vote there was no need to specify all of that as it is well known and it would have been the duty of any board member to demand further explanations if the scope of the proposal wasn’t clear or had doubts about its legitimacy and adherence to the statutes.
It is also well known that TDF, when possible, supports initiatives that promote the use of LibreOffice and Open Source software and this is one of those opportunities where TDF can join forces with other non for profit organisations to do so.
From your first comment you chose to attack the BoD trying to once again setup a narrative of secrecy for a decision on which all directors had the opportunity to evaluate and discuss and that has been made public as soon as it has been confirmed.
As you made quite strong public comments I ask you to publicly provide evidence supporting your accusation of “illegal and counter-statutory behavior”.
I also ask you publicly to state what you think the consequences should be for directors/deputies that have shown “illegal and counter-statutory behavior” as well as the consequences for people that are found to have made unsubstantiated accusations of “illegal and counter-statutory behavior”, and similar serious accusations, on this public list.
Ciao
Paolo