Dear board (current & new), *,
there's another update to the board CoI policy now in draft status,
I've uploaded it with enabled change tracking here:
Modifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed
in the legal group, and drafted by Mike.
I propose a brief discussion here (in case there's a need) and would
subsequently then ask the new board if they would want to adopt it as
the working policy on our first, inaugural board call.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Hi Thorsten,
Dear board (current & new), *,
there's another update to the board CoI policy now in draft status,
I've uploaded it with enabled change tracking here:Modifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed
in the legal group, and drafted by Mike.
I had a look at my emails and the only reference I found about the changes in the CoI by a member of the legal oversight team (me) said that the changes in 6.3 were OK, but nothing about 5.1, and that as suggested by our legal counsel we will use 1.3.2 as base for eventual future versions.
Could you point me to emails from other members of the legal oversight team stating that 1.3.2 was ready and accepted for adoption?
Many called for unanimous consent for adoption of the CoI Policy so I believe there should be also unanimous consent for changes to be published and then adopted IMHO.
I propose a brief discussion here (in case there's a need) and would
subsequently then ask the new board if they would want to adopt it as
the working policy on our first, inaugural board call.
I would have been good to talk in generic terms about the changes that the new draft would have brought to the CoI Policy while at the same time asking to the legal oversight team if the new version was OK to be published before publishing it.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
> Modifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed
> in the legal group, and drafted by Mike.I had a look at my emails and the only reference I found about the changes
in the CoI by a member of the legal oversight team (me) said that the
changes in 6.3 were OK, but nothing about 5.1, and that as suggested by our
legal counsel we will use 1.3.2 as base for eventual future versions.
Can you point out where my initial statement was wrong?
Could you point me to emails from other members of the legal
oversight team stating that 1.3.2 was ready and accepted for
adoption?
Right now, the draft is up for discussion. The changes where discussed
last year, but then elections and the Xmas break delayed matters.
The change, as stated, was drafted by Mike, as part of the ongoing
improvements and careful balancing work we did end of last year. Your
email from Wed, 19 Jan 2022 16:47:58 (in that internal conversation)
did not object to that modification.
Many called for unanimous consent for adoption of the CoI Policy so
I believe there should be also unanimous consent for changes to be
published and then adopted IMHO.
The initial, very controversial 1st version of the policy was anything
but unanimously agreed on. So that is a very one-sided argument.
How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the
policy is still considered not ok for some.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Hi Thorsten,
How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the
policy is still considered not ok for some.
All of us read and accepted to be bound by the current version of the CoI Policy by being a member of the Board of Directors.
I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or wouldn't have ran for a board position.
As suggested in various email exchanges, by our legal counsel and confirmed by Marina in her email dated 07/02/2022 the MC is waiting for the Board to confirm that we have an agreed on version of the Policy so that they can put in the agenda their own revisions.
IMHO the best way forward would be to confirm to the MC that we are all OK with the current version of the Policy, let them work out their changes and once they are done with it we will work together to align the Policies as much as possible by including mutually agreed amendments and suggestions like those present in 1.3.2 if it will be necessary.
While working toward a version 2 of the policy with the MC we should also take in consideration that the ESC should adopt the same policy.
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or
wouldn't have ran for a board position.
That is in direct contradiction to my statement up-thread. So what
follows is not a workable proposal.
But let's hear what the rest of the board thinks.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Hi Thorsten,
Hi Paolo,
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or
wouldn't have ran for a board position.That is in direct contradiction to my statement up-thread. So what
follows is not a workable proposal.
If you made a statement it doesn't mean that is correct and contradicting it doesn't invalidate a proposal.
As from BoD RoP:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/BoD_rules
"In addition to § 7, (5) of the statutes, the Board of Directors hereby agrees on the following rules of procedure."
"Binding part of these Rules of Procedure is the Board’s Conflict of Interest Policy"
I'm sure that all current members of the board have read the rules and have accepted to be bound by the current CoI Policy.
Denying acceptance of our Statutes, public BoD Rules of Procedures and related CoI policy now would not send out a very good message.
But let's hear what the rest of the board thinks.
We may need to organise a session to explain to the new board members why we need a CoI Policy, how we got to the current version and what are the implications in regards to their decision processes before they could express and informed opinion.
Without that they may not even know why we should rush in minor changes.
Allowing the MC to do its part and working together with them to create a version 2 will allow the new board members to understand better the policy and provide proper informed opinions.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Ciao
Paolo
Hi Thorsten, all,
Thorsten Behrens píše v Út 15. 02. 2022 v 19:17 +0100:
there's another update to the board CoI policy now in draft status,
I've uploaded it with enabled change tracking here:https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/e/e5/BoD_Conflict_of_Inte
rest_Policy_ver1_3_2_draft_2022-02-15.pdfModifications are in sections 5.1 and 6.3. The changes were discussed
in the legal group, and drafted by Mike.
Both changes are fine for me - the 5.1 sounds like a good
clarification, and the 6.3 like a good cleanup: IANAL, but I was
advised by a lawyer once that "intention" is worthless in contracts,
because "intention" is nearly impossible to prove anyway.
All the best,
Kendy
Hi all,
How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the
policy is still considered not ok for some.All of us read and accepted to be bound by the current version of the CoI Policy by being a member of the Board of Directors.
I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or wouldn't have ran for a board position.
Life can be so complicated at times 
I do not see a reason not to support the small improvements that are in.
Cheers,
Cor
I don't have concerns about the specific changes, which substantively
looks like +1/-3 words. The document reads very draconian to me but
that's not the question asked here.
Hi Cor,
Hi all,
How do you suggest we move this forward then? The current state of the
policy is still considered not ok for some.All of us read and accepted to be bound by the current version of the CoI Policy by being a member of the Board of Directors.
I believe no one in the current board has any problem with it or wouldn't have ran for a board position.Life can be so complicated at times
I do not see a reason not to support the small improvements that are in.
It always depends on the point of view. Some may call them improvements others may call them weakening of a policy. That isn't any way the main point.
Surely all the member of the board read and accepted to be bound by the current CoI Policy as nobody complained about it when agreed to be a BoD member.
We could accept those changes (if everyone actually understood their implications within the meaning of the whole policy) or, as they are minor, just let the MC do it's job and then harmonise the policies so changes may not even be needed right now.
Cheers,
Cor
Ciao
Paolo