[DECISION] TDF to join APELL Advisory Board

The statutes have “public by default”. Yes, this could have been done better here, but it was not badly intended.

The statutes do not mandate “ask the community”, which is what Eliane is saying. The board needs to be able to take decisions.

Now, in an ideal world we would have more public discussions on more matters. A discussion culture as we see here, with terms like “illegal”, “counter-statutory” and others, don’t make that appealing. So in the end, this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If we all treat each other “with courtesy, indulgence, objectivity, open-mindedness, friendliness, understanding and goodwill”, as our very own statutes say, we will win a lot.

Yes, that’s correct.

The mail contained the literal quote (DeepL translated): “Therefore, I kindly ask you to consider becoming a member of the APELL Advisory Board.”

We now can argue whether that’s a strong enough invitation, but it doesn’t change the fact that the board can take decisions. We agree that the vote could have been done in public, but we disagree that a community consultation would have been legally required. That it would have been nice, that’s a different matter, but I explained above why the discussion culture here doesn’t help.

As you make a statement what’s legally required, can you please tell me where in the statutes you find that documents or e-mails must be shared? I don’t find either of these words. The unique document that is mentioned are “minutes of meetings”.

This has been explained to you multiple times. The statutes make it explicitly clear that the BoD cannot keep all non-minute documents and correspondence secret, as minutes are just one of several categories whose disclosure is explicitly required.

But even regardless of this: The presumption, that important documents whose disclosure is not explicitly mandated by our statutes, are to be kept secret from the trustees - that is politically and morally bankrupt. Which is why the argument about the legal obligation is actually the minor point here.

I will not engage with all your grave accusations and harsh wordings
here, which are indeed not what our statutes expect from our members,
and what I’ve quoted above. Such discussion cultures effectively hinders
constructive discussion, so you are an active part of what you are
complaining about.

However:

This has been explained to you multiple times. The statutes make it
explicitly clear that the BoD cannot keep all non-minute documents and
correspondence secret, as minutes are just one of several categories
whose disclosure is explicitly required.

Where is this made “explicitly” clear? I do not find the word “document”
in the statutes. If you make a legal claim, back it. Otherwise it is an
opinion, but not more.

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

Let’s recall the wording. Here’s the English:

Not only is the wording general; and mentions three categories of information which must be made known to the public, but it also says that minutes of meetings are just included, in the wider definition, i.e. they don’t cover it.

Indeed, the word ‘document’ does not appear in this clause of the statutes; but that is both immaterial and also implicit in the text. A document is “a writing conveying information” or “an original or official paper relied on as the basis, proof, or support of something”, or “a computer file containing information input by a computer user”. An organization’s business, its “processes”, is conducted through documents, whether they be reports, proposals, letters, summaries, minutes, accounts etc. Other than undocumented conversations and personal messages - the rest is documents.

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.