Moving the discussion here, this is not a vote anymore.
Hi all,
I read the paragraph about staff protection and would like to ask, if there has been already created and set in place a regulation to protect the staff.
If I read that paragraph correctly such a regulation had to be in place before any ESC vote on projects / items.
Regards,
Andreas
1 Like
Hi Andreas,
[andreasma] andreasma
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/andreasma
July 5
I read the paragraph about staff protection and would like to ask, if
there has been already created and set in place a regulation to protect
the staff
Good question.
It has been requested to have that in place ultimately 90 days after the
procedure. But there is no doubt in the board that it will be done faster.
Cheers,
Current Year
Solar year 2023.
What does that means ? ‘Solar year’… is there any other kind ?
‘Current Year’ is used exactly once in the text. why create a pedantic yet confusing and vague definition, the legalese was not long enough ?
Associate
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 ?
Norbert
[andreasma] andreasma
Profile - andreasma - The Document Foundation Community
July 5
I read the paragraph about staff protection and would like to ask, if
there has been already created and set in place a regulation to protect
the staff
Good question.
It has been requested to have that in place ultimately 90 days after the
procedure. But there is no doubt in the board that it will be done faster.
If you read the text of the procedure there is a clear rule that the staff protection has to be in place before any ESC vote on projects / items.
It looks as if you are not able to read and follow the text (procedure) you voted on. I’m really shocked about your inability to realize the meaning of clear and not difficult to understand texts.
And from the text (procedure) it is really clear that the ESC vote is invalid!
The board was not able to create the staff protection regulation before the ESC evaluation and voting process and thus wasted the working hours / spare time of all staff / community members who participated in that void process. It’s a shame.
Regards,
Andreas
Why has this sentence been added without actually having it evaluated by the professional that created the document?
That sentence has been mentioned once in the board mailing list with an objection that stated:
"Members of the ESC affiliated with potential bidders are unlikely to have a similar clause in their employment contract and it would be anyway very difficult to verify and enforce.
As protection from influences by their own management cannot be guaranteed with other members of the ESC the clause to have it imposed only on TDF’s members of staff is unfair and disadvantageous for TDF."
If a sentence could have been added it would have been, even if a bit redundant if procedures and CoIs are respected:
“Any attempt by person affiliated with potential bidders, within the ESC or in any other settings, and/or performing actions, in direct or indirect ways, intended to influence the tendering process must be reported to the ED and/or through the whistleblowing mechanism.”
Apart from that I have no visibility of who decided that adding that sentence was a good idea and if it complies with general procurement rules.
Then the version that is being voted is not the version that has been used the 29/06/2023 to prepare the ESC budget so I guess that budget vote is still not valid then.
Hi Paolo,
[PaoloVecchi] PaoloVecchi
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/paolovecchi
July 5Why has this sentence been added without actually having it evaluated by
the professional that created the document?nemeth: Any instruction for them to vote by their management chain up to and including the board, should be reported via the whistleblowing mechanism.That sentence has been mentioned once in the board mailing list with an
objection that stated:
Always fun to quote a part from your own mails, not, Paolo? Sad however
that you seem to be much less interested in the replies you got in the
board.
“Members of the ESC affiliated with potential bidders are unlikely to
have a similar clause in their employment contract and it would be
anyway very difficult to verify and enforce.
As protection from influences by their own management cannot be
guaranteed with other members of the ESC the clause to have it imposed
only on TDF’s members of staff is unfair and disadvantageous for TDF.”
The procedure rules that members of ESC affiliated to potential bidders
do not vote. So it is a non issue that you discuss. Then of course the
framing fits perfectly in the message that you are broadcasting
constantly blaming some directors of unfair behavior, but again it is
nonsense.
To be very clear: all this is specifically and only for the ESC voting
on the ranking of projects for tendering.
And if you want to understand the ESC: it has been explained extensively
how people in the ESC work together based on their technical insights
and respect for each others competence.
The procedure we are voting on, says that (in case of non-consent etc. -
read details) non-conflicted members will vote on the ranking. They must
be enabled to do that in their full capacity as ESC member.
And creating separate rules to protect staff for possible pressure from
different directions, is highly impractical and serves no goal.
If a sentence could have been added it would have been, even if a bit
redundant if procedures and CoIs are respected:
“Any attempt by person affiliated with potential bidders, within the ESC
or in any other settings, and/or performing actions, in direct or
indirect ways, intended to influence the tendering process must be
reported to the ED and/or through the whistleblowing mechanism.”Apart from that I have no visibility of who decided that adding that
sentence was a good idea and if it complies with general procurement rules.
We’ve discussed it in the board. And since you did not reply any more at
some stage, the conclusion is that we have your consent, that is: no
more (grounded) objections from your side.
Then the version that is being voted is not the version that has been
used the 29/06/2023 to prepare the ESC budget so I guess that budget
vote is still not valid then.
It was agreed - during the boards discussion - that the ESC could vote
using the procedure, providing no changes to the voting procedure would
be made.
The version we are voting on, is the one provided by Carlo + added
changes that were discussed either with Carlo or with the board only.
Changes are unsubstantial: the clear intention was, as was agreed, to
not change any of the meaning of the draft given to the board.
Cheers,
Cor
This useful protection for staff, gives the huge advantage to TDF of
liberating them to vote their conscience without fear of retaliation and
so getting the best information out of their deliberation. I expect
staff to comprise a near majority of the votes there.
I was pleased to see my public feedback on the need to protect the
staff here appear in a different form in the end result, and I’m
surprised to see you oppose that.
Ensuring that TDF cannot require its staff to vote a certain way makes
sense. Its much easier to imagine a corporate majority on the board (it
was expected when we setup TDF) than it is to imagine someone bribing
someone to win a TDF tender[!].
In my view it is wise to ensure that everyone involved, whatever their
association, can vote freely as individuals - like other volunteers -
for what they believe is best for LibreOffice. There is no ultimate
disadvantage for TDF - it can choose to ignore the result, or to change
the process at its discretion in case of problems.
Regards,
Michael.
“The board” isn’t you proposing something and me telling you that isn’t such a wise idea. If “the board” actually discusses things somewhere else, as it happened before, then it’s a different matter.
I made my statement, “the board” ignored it. Business as usual.
You also well know that unless I explicitly consent, there is no consent.
Hi Paolo,
[PaoloVecchi] PaoloVecchi
https://community.documentfoundation.org/u/paolovecchi
July 5
I made my statement, “the board” ignored it. Business as usual.
Again, you do not mention that we did spent quite some energy on
discussion this one addition.
You also well know that unless I explicitly consent, there is no consent.
‘Paolo not responding’ … that is something as the north pole touching
the south pole 
The thread clearly showed you had no argument left.
But of course, 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.
Cheers,
Cor
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 
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?