Discuss vote on "Technical Budgeting Procedure"

Hi Norbert!

Does running/owning a business that offer online hosting of App, who would benefit from donations being used to develop feature that help their online customer instead of having to finance one’s own business, considered a CoI ?

It certainly does create a personal interest; depending on the topic/proposal at hand, it might also be a conflict of interest.
Does that help?

Wrt you other question (Solar year) I guess someone else can help.

Cheers,
Cor

Hi Paolo,

[PaoloVecchi] PaoloVecchi

I provided my explanation here:

And you seem to ignore the answer to that :wink:

The expert that wrote the procedure is also not impressed, he advised
the board not to implement some of those changes but some, once again,
decided not to take professional advice in consideration.

The expert clearly appreciated our suggestion for a staff protection
section. He advised the voluntarily applicable whistleblowing procedure
in stead of our first text, but did not advise against our approach…
All advise has been taken into consideration. And be honest: there are
much more earlier suggestions that we decided not to put in after
evaluating the advise given.
So what you state, simply is not true.

It would be great to know why this vote went out without a board
discussion and why the text has not been checked by the expert who wrote
the rest of the text.

Again: all changes (apart from obvious typos) have somehow been
discussed. And then there comes a moment that repeating the discussion
makes no sense.
Wrt the changes voted in, for me that point has come clearly now.

But do let me repeat, that I hope we can cooperate in the next phases of
improvements we’re working on.

Greetings,
Cor

I did not ignore the answer and as there has been no evaluation of that addition by the board and the addition has not been submitted to the expert for evaluation I followed your recommendation and voted against it.

The fact that he replaced your suggestion, which includes the text you re-added, show that he didn’t really find your addition to be meaningful in a public procurement context and that he advised against your approach.

While it’s understandable the PoV that the ESC should be a neutral ground for exchanges of information of a technical nature, there are also rules that need to be followed in relation to public procurement which include the management of conflict of interests and influences from members of the ESC/board which are affiliated with potential bidders.

That’s the same discussion we had also in relation to the developers proposal I made which took in consideration the expert advice we received but that you circumvented by sending out another proposal that doesn’t include or even takes in consideration that advice.

So in a way the matter has been discussed, expert advice has been received but no lessons have been learned.

Please do check the documents and emails we all have before making these types of statements as you will notice that you are mistaken.

The text you and Laszlo wrote and sent the 10/06/2023, which includes the sentence you added again, has been fully replaced the 12/06/2023 as clearly not compatible with a public procurement process.

Where have those changes been discussed and by whom?

Why there are no traces of board engagement in minutes or the directors mailing list?

How is it possible that no other members of the board, apart Emiliano and myself, have not recognised the obvious issue with those changes which have already been advised against?

I instead hope that the board recognises its mistakes and fixes them before moving on making even more mistakes.

Hi,

[PaoloVecchi] PaoloVecchi

I did not ignore the answer and as there has been no evaluation of that
addition by the board and the addition has not been submitted to the
expert for evaluation I followed your recommendation and voted against it.

Nice try. “If you think this addition is so badly disturbing the
whole procedure, or even the staff protection part (all these arguments
have not been provided): you have the freedom to vote against.”

Where have those changes been discussed and by whom?

Directors list. Please don’t play dumb.

Cheers,
Cor

So you are confirming that the discussion was only between you and me as stated here:

https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/vote-technical-budgeting-procedure/9520/8

The 30/06/2023 you proposed that sentence, the same day I’ve expressed my objections and your answer to that wasn’t at all constructive or even trying to evaluated the issue from a public procurement point of view. That’s it, nobody else intervened on that issue.

The board did not discuss the merit of re-adding text that hasn’t been deemed to be fit for purpose by the expert.

The board did not discuss changing the word “affiliate” with “associate”, not a big deal changing that word but the first time I’ve seen that change was in the vote itself.

Laszlo stated that he has been told that changes were acceptable despite having been rejected in the first place by the expert and not being discussed by the board (apart for the exchange mentioned above). Who told him to send out the vote despite being aware of the issues?

Is this yet again another result of the shadow board you admitted setting up since last year to exclude a couple of directors from the decision making process?

Dear Paolo,

Laszlo stated that he has been told that changes were acceptable despite having been rejected in the first place by the expert and not being discussed by the board (apart for the exchange mentioned above). Who told him to send out the vote despite being aware of the issues?

Can you tell me when I stated something like this? I have read the discussion, which made it clear to me that the proposed changes do not affect the procedure, in fact they make it clearer.

Best regards,
László

Hi Laszlo,

you stated that in your reply (05/07/2023 16:25 CET) to the expert that was wondering why changes he advised against have been reintroduced in the text.

The expert already rejected the change the 12/06/2023 the 30/06/2023 Cor proposed it again and got an explanation from myself on why it wasn’t such a good idea to add again the same changes.

What was the rationale that has been provided, to whoever discussed that, for adding that change in a public procurement process?

Did anyone evaluated the difference between the ESC meeting to discuss general technical topics and the ESC meeting to provide input for a tendering process where CoIs must be clearly removed?

Cor also stated:

So why a separate rule to “protect” members of staff from conflicted members of the ESC/board, which should be the obvious rule, has been ignored by Cor and not considered by the board while a special rule to “protect” members of staff from non-conflicted members of the board has been added ignoring the expert advice and an objection that was seen as obvious for at least 2 directors?

Is the decision to send out that vote with those issues your own or it has been taken by the “shadow board”?

Hi Paolo,

Laszlo stated that he has been told that changes were acceptable despite having been rejected in the first place by the expert and not being discussed by the board (apart for the exchange mentioned above). Who told him to send out the vote despite being aware of the issues?

Can you tell me when I stated something like this? I have read the discussion, which made it clear to me that the proposed changes do not affect the procedure, in fact they make it clearer.
[/quote]

you stated that in your reply (05/07/2023 16:25 CET) to the expert that was wondering why changes he advised against have been reintroduced in the text.

Please, read that letter again. I stated the opposite: I had followed up the discussion, which made it clear to me that the proposed changes do not affect the procedure. It’s not the first time you’ve tried to change the meaning of what I said.

The thing is that you have repeatedly violated the procedural order requested by the expert not to contact him directly. Needless to say, breaking the rules gives you an advantage, e.g. spreading lies about me.

Best regards,
László

Hi Paolo,

It is ok to disagree with the policy (although a lot of effort went into drafting it). But “shadow board”, really? Next thing will be you accusing staff of being the “deep state”?

And the idea that we would need to first vote on sending out a vote, then voting on the vote is just bonkers…

Best, Thorsten

Hi Laszlo,

it seems like I misunderstood the meaning of your sentence: “Following the discussion on the board list, I was informed that these changes are acceptable in the first version of the procedure.”

As there was no information in the exchange I had with Cor that could lead to an understanding that the changes were acceptable, the only interpretation I could get out of that sentence is that you have been informed/told by someone else that it would have been acceptable.

Please to tell when your meaning has been misinterpreted. If I’m not mistaken this is the first time I’ve been notified that I’ve tried to change the meaning of what you said.

I offered several times since the beginning of this term to look at minutes, documents and evidence together so that things are clear for all but that offer has never been taken in consideration.

True that once I complained directly with the expert, with board and legal counsel in copy, as I believed that the RoP changes were illegitimate. The expert asked to send them to our legal counsel first, which I did and apologised for sending the message directly (22/04/2023 10:19 CET). The expert recognised the issue with that vote, recommended the board to revert the RoP changes and revoke the vote.
Most members of the board decided not to participate to the vote I sent out to follow legal advice.

Is that what you meant with “repeatedly violated the procedural order”?

I believe we clarified both the “breaking the rules” and “spreading lies about” you.

Would you mind providing feedback in relation to the rest of the message and the issues with adding the changes that the expert advised against?

“Shadow board” is one of the terms used by another director to describe what has been finally revealed in writing by Cor last week. I could have used the other less diplomatic ways of calling it used in directors emails but then it would have been yet another good excuse to block me again.

2 directors have been excluded from discussions and the decision process since last year, that’s what written records that have been revealed show, and that in my opinion violates the democratic process within TDF and probably statutes and some laws.

It is now clearer to me how “the board” has been working during this term and why obvious mistakes have been made and voted on.

I tried my best to avoid that the board carries on making mistakes but it is clear that the shadow board doesn’t want to be bothered by facts, evidence and respecting professional advice.

Hi all,

sorry for being late to this party and thanks for those working on this so far.

However, reading the definition of “associate”, “conflicted member” and “contracting party”, I feel one important source of CoI fell through the cracks here.

One draft idea would be to add the missing part in “contracting party” as follows:

An entity which has successfully tendered in a bid OR has otherwise entered into a Contract with the TDF, for products or services for any length of time over the last calendar year from the current date OR the current calendar year, AND for an aggregate amount equal or larger than 20,000 euros during the same combine period …

… OR an entity that provides services or products that might benefit from tenders and contracts entered by TDF – especially if it is reasonable to assume the entity might seek to offer such tenders and contracts – directly or through intermediates – would TDF not exist.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

2 Likes

Hi Paolo,

I only see two directors deliberately refusing to work with the rest of the board - e.g. completely ignoring an entirely uncontroversial vote, or one of them stating they would simply not join any in-person offsite board meeting anyway, regardless of the scheduling.

So I guess nothing new under the sun, was the same already last year in Berlin.

Best, Thorsten

OR an entity that provides services or products that might benefit from tenders and contracts entered by TDF – especially if it is reasonable to assume the entity might seek to offer such tenders and contracts – directly or through intermediates – would TDF not exist.

So it is just no me that think that “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

The insistence on hiring developer (which was – I remember the Board having that discussion and we all agreed that hiring, sure when we can afford it, but never ever a developer as that would lead to bottomless rabit hole – and still is a terrible idea), and make sure to undermine the basic fundamental of ‘doers are deciders’ by insisting that somehow the BoD has the power to hijack and overrule the ESC in matter of technical directions, well the BoD except pretty much everyone competent on the topic, that are manufactured to be ‘in conflict’.
Bttw the ESC pre-date the BoD. it existed before the BoD and it will continue to exist in one form or another after.

Add on top of that a public stance of obstructionism, by trampling all the traditions of the BoD in term of representations. Make sure to exclude as many legitimate BoD member from a vote, and use your seat as a way to threaten reaching Quorum to force your way…

This is sad to see TDF being squandered by politician interested mostly in diverting funding to finance their company pet project at the expense of the decade of works to build this foundation.

Norbert

3 Likes

Maybe 2 directors noticed that the vote was not necessary as Italo was faster and better organised than “the board”?

I believe it wasn’t only me stating, months ago, that spending TDF money to meet in July does not make sense but “the board” decided to do it anyway ignoring all objections as usual.

I preferred to avoid wasting donors money and my time as since last year decisions are taken elsewhere.

For Berlin I was available on a specific date, Cor on another one. “The board” decided that Cor’s presence was more useful. Looking at the minutes and at the result from Berlin, Milan and Brussels it’s clear that there is a lot of talk, lots of good intentions and then once back home the “shadow board” resumes its duties and what 2 directors stated or proposed is totally ignored.

Nihil novi sub sole, I agree on that.

If “the board” has finished with the rounds of whataboutism and distractions it would be great if someone provides actual explanations about a vote that has been decided elsewhere and why it went out again with stuff that is detrimental to TDF and has been advised against by the expert that wrote the tendering process.

Paolo

Yes, this is definitely a gap that Bjoern has highlighted.

S.

Hi Thorsten, hi all,

Am 11.07.23 um 16:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens via The Document Foundation Community:

\ 45x45 thb
July 11

Hi Paolo,

PaoloVecchi:

Is the decision to send out that vote with those issues your own or it has been taken by the “shadow board”?

It is ok to disagree with the policy (although a lot of effort went into drafting it). But “shadow board”, really?

thanks for confirming that there is a ‘shadow board’ or what you like to name it.

Could you please explain who is member or attendee of this ‘shadow board’ and who is leading it?

I couldn’t find such a body on the TDF statutes yet.

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Thorsten, hi all,

Am 11.07.23 um 16:00 schrieb Thorsten Behrens via The Document Foundation Community:

\ 45x45 thb
July 11

Hi Paolo,

PaoloVecchi:

Is the decision to send out that vote with those issues your own or it has been taken by the “shadow board”?

It is ok to disagree with the policy (although a lot of effort went into drafting it). But “shadow board”, really? Next thing will be you accusing staff of being the “deep state”?

the last sentence is offensive towards Paolo and all members of staff.

I personally (with some experience in people’s management) wouldn’t even have thought about such a labeling of members of staff.

The above sentence seemed to show the real view of the author on the members of staff. And it shows that he expects a bad person behind every corner. That is no ground for building a winning team.

Your repeated bad (and not only inappropriate) behavior towards people with other opinions, including the members of TDF staff, is already sufficient and broad documented and confirmed by many community members.

No community could and should tolerate such behavior. In any company or institution, you would have been released of your management duties immediately, to protect people’s mental (and physical) health and well-being.

It is a shame and not in any case tolerable, that the majority of the board, except Paolo and Emiliano (who are not members of the ‘shadow board’) are not taking actions immediately.

If some of the members of the ‘shadow board’ own a spark of integrity, they could prove that now and take the necessary actions immediately.

Regards,
Andreas

thanks for confirming that there is a ‘shadow board’

Where did Thorsten do that? He certainly did not in the message to which you are replying.

Cheers

Simon

Hi all,

It seems the goal is to do as if Paolo is excluded by other directors…

[PaoloVecchi] PaoloVecchi

Is the decision to send out that vote with those issues your own or it
has been taken by the “shadow board”?

This nice frame of a shadow board is in fact a group of directors that
meet irregularly to listen, discuss in an open and respectful atmosphere
and where there is no threatening, mud throwing, etc. Obviously that
works productively and helps to grow compromises.
And all procedures and directors rights from any director are fully
respected.
Notably, creating a safe environment, that also is not overloaded with
many long mails that are ‘not so inviting’, is essential to allow the
directors with a normal day job engage in board activities.
Guess why we came to the solution to talk in smaller circle now and then.

This situation has by the way already been mentioned in an earlier
discussion. And explained. So why this needs to be stirred up again…

Cheers,
Cor