[DECISION] TDF to join APELL Advisory Board

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.

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