[DECISION] TDF to join APELL Advisory Board

How can I “actually read” anything when you’re hiding all of the documents from us, always?

You conduct discussions and make decisions in secret; we have no input going in to them, and after they are decided, we are unable to take you to task and undo anything inappropriate or even direct your to adopt a different policy: We cannot convene ourselves nor take any decision binding upon the BoD or the Director. Even in the most extreme cases of misconduct, like subverting the MC elections in direct contravention of our statutes - you are untouchable to us.

And you’re suggesting it’s all fine because we’re allowed to vent.

You now have the documents that were already publicly available, that you found and could have read as shown in your first message.

You, instead of reading the documents, chose to attack the board and you keep carry on despite having all the information you need to evaluate the substance, the legality and the adherence to the statutes of this decision.

If you don’t mind now I’d like to get to the bottom of this serious matter:

"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."

I suppose you would agree with me that it is important that everyone is held accountable for their actions, from members of the board of directors to anyone posting public accusations, so I guess you are very keen in making this matter a priority for you.

Ciao

Paolo

“secret conversations” has a quite negative connotation and IMHO implies that directors are writing things on the mailing list that they purposefully want to keep secret from the trustees and the public as they might be going against the best interests of TDF and the community.

If that is the case then it’s your duty to report that to our legal team and, if legally possible, expose to the public those “secret conversation” so that directors are made accountable for their actions.

I welcome your change of mind from the times when you instead were advocating for the application of moderation of this very forum when people were just hinting at the very bad things that some directors were doing as then confirmed by lawyers and audits.

Ciao

Paolo

So we can agree that the statutes do not explicitly lists documents. Which means that this is an interpretation of yours, which might be right, or might be wrong.

If I recall correctly - please correct me if I’m wrong - in another thread you also wanted to be involved in the hiring discussion. This brings us to the questions which documents to share, e.g.

  • Confidential documents or such where we entered an NDA?

  • Sensitive HR documents including contracts?

With all the above uncertainties and room for interpretation, it is quite a stretch to claim this board violates the statutes by not publishing things.

You can express you are unhappy, you can express you wished the board did differently - that’s an opinion, which everyone is entitled to. Claiming things are legally done wrong, that people act “illegally”, is an entirely different beast.

If you can’t back this claim, I suggest not repeating it, also in light of the last sentence in § 10 I of our statutes.

I’m sorry, but is there anything that prevents me from having doubts that the decision was made in Paolo’s personal interest?

If you make such accusations, you should be able to back it.

Several people have repeatedly mentioned in the past that it would be good for TDF to “sit at the table”. There have even been budget proposals for similar activities in the past, also in this very forum.

We had several names associated with attending meetings and advisory board sessions on behalf of TDF, from board, staff and community members. This is the first time I hear such a decision would have been taken just in someone’s personal interest.

So please back your statement before pointing fingers. You not only do wrong to Paolo, but to everyone who voted in favor.

You are free to have doubts about anything you want but as you mentioned my personal interests I can assure you that I have a personal interest, I would even say a passion, for supporting activities that promote LibreOffice and Open Source software.

LibreOffice and TDF were mentioned in talks at the Open Source Conference I’ve organised here in Luxembourg at the beginning of the month

and I’ve promoted LibreOffice at hack.lu during this week

That reminds me I’ll need to get more LibreOffice stickers as I nearly finished them.

I guess it is your personal interest to do the same when you can.

Then as a member of TDF’s board of directors of course I have an interest and a duty to support the mission and goals of our foundation so I’m happy to participate to APELL’s Advisory Board meetings to see how we can help each others in promoting Open Source in general and TDF’s interests in Brussels.

I hope this helps removing your doubts.

Ciao

Paolo

Have some respect, or am I not entitled to express my doubts?

I’m sorry, but I can’t see you as someone I can trust.

Hi,

your statement didn’t only express doubts but it creates a statement in public. And now you need to submit evidence for your doubts. If you are not able to provide such evidence / facts you mustn’t make such statements (wraped in a question) on a resource of TDF and in public.

Please have a closer look on § 10 par. 1 last sentence of the statutes, which you have to follow as a TDF member.

Regards,
Andreas

Don’t be sorry, you asked about my personal interests and I shared just a couple of the most recent ones and if that is all you now know about me then of course it’s not enough to make you trust me.

I respect people and their opinions. What I don’t respect, and absolutely not tolerate, is harsh accusations and public attacks.

Opinions can differ and everyone should be able to express them without fear.

This thread is getting a bit long, so let’s think back where things started: the surprise by Eyal and others about this vote and the unhappiness that it was not conducted in public.

Yes, it could have been done in public, and all of us need to get better with this.

Turning that into a narrative of illegality, violation of statutes, secrecy and clique builiding - none of this is fair, nor fine, nor tolerable. It only creates a toxic atmosphere, which is one of the things that already destroyed so much at TDF and LibreOffice.

Let’s remember why we are here: even if our means might be different, we have the same goal for the common good in mind.

I really wish all of us to remember this, and revert back to a discussion culture in which people are happy to participate.

I have no problem to admit that this particular vote could have been done in public. I do have a big problem, however, that anyone is painted as a clique that acts in secret, illegally and in violation of the statutes.

That is not an opinion. That is a hateful attitude that just destroys any community spirit.

If people want to spread hate, this project is not the right place for them.

Stop it.

No, we can’t agree on that, the statutes explicitly list documents. They just don’t use the word documents.

And again, it’s the weasely attempt to justify running a public foundation’s affairs secretly.

Your are literally spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Let us dispel them somewhat.

  • TDF documents are not confidential. To make a document confidential, the BoD has to take an explicit decision to keep it confidential temporarily, including an end date or terminating condition for the embargo on publication.
  • Confidentiality can arise otherwise, e.g. due to some legal obligation (example: An employee’s personal affairs). Naturally, general requirements of transparency have such exceptions, and they are easy to observe. You are trying to use such limited exception to justify the rule of secrecy.
  • The TDF can’t enter into NDA’s which contradict its statutes, for the BoD or the director to use as an excuse to avoid disclosing significant information to the trustees.
  • It is preposterous that external parties get to have information that we do not.

You (and the BoD) are continuing to encourage (if not more than that) conduct of the foundation’s affairs in a manner detrimental to its statutory goals, specifically goal §2(2). That goal stress openness, while you are championing the opposite. The consistent insistence on secrecy and consequent exclusion of trustees from discussions affecting the foundation and the project also make our “FLOSS development community” less “sustainable, independent and meritocratic”.

Doubts cannot have ‘evidence’, only circumstances. And while I also agree that @mariosv 's allegation-by-doubt is excessive - the circumstances are those of a secret procedure and a rushed decision, the actual meaning of which has not even been clarified.

In fact, if you, @andreasma , and the body of which you are a member, would not be totally abdicating your duty of oversight over the BoD and staff, and would ensure both transparency and due process in various contexts, I’m guessing @mariosv would not develop suspicions so easily.

Dear @EyalRozenberg,

first of all:

The statutes say: “the processes, discussions and decisions of the foundation, its committees, the Board of Directors and any Executive Directors, including minutes of meetings.”

I don’t see documents explicitly listed so your statement is wrong.

It is natural that whenever possible statements, documents and supporting evidence can/should be shared showing how the board got to that decision.

In this case you know about the process (we voted as it happened for years on the directors mailing list), the discussions (for 5 days directors provided only positive feedback for the motion) and the decision (which is public) and you have been provided supporting documentation, which you anyway also found yourself. in relation to this specific matter.

What else is missing?

Now, shall we sort out the serious issue you created?

Ciao

Paolo

I think by now we can skip discussing the statutes, because it does not seem to be about them. With the logic I see here, we could also say that TDF fosters proprietary standards and closed source, or selling space on the moon - we just use other words in the statutes.

I tried to engage with you on the matter you brought up, admitted things could be improved, but to no avail. With every message you send, the tone gets rougher and the accusations get more severe. You have been accusing various people repeatedly, in private and in public, you have shared private e-mails repeatedly despite people explicitly asking not to, and you always state an unknown “us”, but I don’t see people collectively supporting your harsh way of presenting things.

It is sad that you spend so much time and energy on such negative things, when we could use all of this to positively, constructively and jointly bring things forward, together.

It is very sad what happens here. What you do hurts people, it draws attention and energy, and it doesn’t advance anything.

I am always happy to engage in a discussion on things to be improved, but I am not open to being attacked in such way. If you want to have a sensible conversation, you know also how to reach me in private.

If you were consequent, you would agree that actually your behaviour is contrary to the rules I pointed out in the statutes, and take the respective actions. Please apply the standards you seek from others also to yourself.

This is also true for the meeting you held in Budapest. I see no recording, no written minutes, no report, nothing of it, although it is nearly two months past. Feel free to chose any of the words you used to attack others to describe your behaviour in this matter - otherwise it confirms the double standards you apply.

@webmink : Can you perhaps forward to the trustees the proposal the BoD members received, or the draft agreement, or whatever it was?

Remember those times you asked me to have faith in you? To trust how you were acting in the benefit of the foundation? Or all those times you were attacking the former BoD for abusing their authority?

Well, I guess now the cat’s out of the bag. Once you’re in the seat of power, it’s “I don’t owe you people any accountability. It doesn’t say ‘documents’, so fuck you and you don’t get anything”. @paolo, You are so lucky that we don’t have a functioning MC (Well, not only lucky, you helped illegally engineer its pliant composition); and you are so lucky that our statutes are horrible and vest near-absolute power in the BoD; and that most of us trustees are so passive and timid.

Can you even be more facetious, @paolo ?

Ok, let me spell it out for you again:

  1. All TDF correspondence with OSBA and APELL.
  2. The proposal, by them or by you, for the TDF to join the APELL AF.
  3. Actually tell us - and the BoD - who is it that pays 6,000 EUR and to whom.
  4. Account, or transcript, of the discussion in which it was decided that TDF should be represented in APELL by yourself.
  5. Documents in the BoD’s possession explaining or indicating the duties and responsibilities of APELL AF members.

and again - none of this is to say that being in APELL is necessarily a bad idea.

1 Like

No, it is very unlikely that I’ve ever asked you for faith or trust as I’m the first one that only trusts evidence and facts.

I wasn’t attacking the board, I was exposing or hinting at the wrongdoings by members of the board within the limits of what is possible to share in relation to legal matters and considering the impacts that a full disclosure would have had on TDF and its community.

Naturally I would do the same during this term, as I did during the previous ones, if this board would try to do something that is against TDF’s best interests.

It doesn’t say documents so your argument stating that the statutes explicitly mention documents is false.

Also your latest statement, containing unnecessary vulgarity, is false as I’ve provided you with additional information and link to the public web page telling you what it was all about, who pays, who get the money and for what.

Then of course when/if we will receive documents related to joining the AB the board will check if there are clauses that would be unacceptable for TDF and if that would be the, unlikely, case then we will not proceed signing the contract.

As you are repeating the accusations of having acted illegally I guess you evaluated what should be the consequences for those that acted illegally and for those that make accusations that might turn out to be false.

Without sorting this issue out I don’t feel is worthwhile having further exchanges with you.

Ciao

Paolo

Eyal,

Your message exceeds the acceptable boundaries of an institutional discussion within The Document Foundation.

As stated in TDF’s Statutes (§10) and the Code of Condut, all members are expected to act with courtesy, good faith, objectivity, and mutual respect, avoiding personal attacks, hostile language, or statements that may incite conflict or misinformation.

The Statutes (§10) clearly state:

“All members are required to treat other members and end users with courtesy, indulgence, objectivity, open-mindedness, friendliness, understanding and goodwill.”

And the Code of Conduct emphasizes that participants must:

“Be respectful. Be considerate. Be patient. Be welcoming.”
“Refrain from insulting/derogatory comments, personal attacks, and other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting.”

Expressions such as “ruling clique” and accusations of “illegal or counter-statutory behavior” without factual basis are inappropriate, disrespectful, and contrary to these principles.

To help maintain a healthy environment for everyone, I kindly ask you to keep the discussion respectful and within the spirit of collaboration that defines this community.

Respect is essential — even in disagreement.

Best,
Eliane

1 Like