(Draft) agenda of in-person board meeting 2023-07-08 and 2023-07-09

Find below the, from what I can tell not yet published, draft agenda for the in-person board meeting 2023-07-08 and 2023-07-09
From what I remember, the meeting was attended not by all board members
I don’t have minutes nor did I attend the meeting, so I share what I found in Nextcloud

Saturday Agenda (draft)

Boards procedures and …

  • there are open wishes
  • clear suggestions in [REDACTED: external communication consultant] report
    • focus on advise in second part of the report
    • some input has already been sent to directors-list
  • fiduciary duties & further CC suggestions
    • there is this folder [REDACTED: board-only folder]
    • The folder includes examples of Board Members Agreement and Code of Ethics which also contain elements that help in protecting members of staff from directors
    • and discussion on tdf-internal
  • in order to get to decisions on our meetings in Bucharest, we need to agree on a clear procedure, time-line & steps, allowing input from relevant sides, time for thinking and discussion etc.

TDF’s Manifesto

  • that’s still to be done
  • in order to get to a decision in Bucharest, we need
  • a procedure, time-line & steps,
  • allowing input from relevant sides, time for thinking and discussion etc.
  • what already has been done:
    • [REDACTED: board-only link]

Online

  • LOOL and the message / decision
    • atticization?

Products and Downloads

  • app store pricing
  • app store evidence for [REDACTED: external entity] (take in consideration that companies of the ecosystem operated independently of TDF when developing app store version of their products and helped TDF little or nothing at all to do that)
  • status and plan LibreOffice in the app stores

Board’s marketing & communication

  • next decade manifesto / vision
  • improve board communication
    • minutes
    • community interactions
    • calls
    • members-only board call section?

Misc

  • apply with LibreOffice as digital public good
    • further fund-raising opportunities?
  • legal backlog handling - see Sunday
  • FSF AB seat - postpone?
  • CoC committee and policy
  • minuting of board meetings
    • currently the directors need to put a lot of energy to check drafts
    • find a professional?
  • external moderation
    • discuss the status

Sunday Agenda (draft)

Staff items

  • staff / board policy
  • team interactions

Strategy items

  • source: [REDACTED: board-only link]
    • direct democracy
    • catch up with industry
    • move away from desktop
    • 10% of project budget decided by members
    • incentivize voting by members
    • lobby EU for more LibreOffice use
    • find new markets and users
    • double number of developers
    • be on every students’s computing device
    • be among top 5 EU orgs for FOSS and digisov questions
    • have teaching LibO be on the course canon for EU learning institutions
    • have ODF docs advertized on EU gov pages
    • rework project / toolchain, to improve on-ramp
    • increase contributions from non-EU citizens
    • increase community metrics
    • spend 10% on education
    • be fully interoperable
    • further professionalize the org
    • increase number of in-person community meetings
    • brand and logo refresh
    • marketing to differentiate between product and project
    • increase diversity
    • get 2 additional companies into project
    • become largest FOSS community w/o larger conflicts

Strategic goals as decided in Milano

  • [REDACTED: board-only link]

Review legal backlog

  • check what is still relevant

Surveys

  • MC / membership review
    • [REDACTED: board-only link]
    • update
    • actions

Votes

  • Approve Technical Budgetting procedure
  • 2023 budget finalization

I’ve not read all of this massive text dump - but am interested to correct this un-attributed statement. I remember us investing to do the work to make LibreOffice work at all in the app-sandbox, then ongoing maintenance and bug-fixing while contributing code back, funding some Mac improvements, as well as providing TDF with advice on financials, market-demand-curves, meetings, not to mention donations from the proceeds of our work to help support TDF - and IIRC ultimately offering to help-out with getting TDF’s own replacement app version shipped. Hands on help may not have been needed at that point - fair enough - Cloph is a clever chap :slight_smile: and much of the heavy-lifting was already done & in the codebase at that point. I think that adds up to some very substantial help.

The minutes have been mailed to the list for the board and the MC (directors@documentfoundation.org, tdf-membership@lists.documentfoundation.org) date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:23:25 +0200 , subject: “Minutes for the TDF in-person board meeting (was: Agenda for TDF in-person board meeting on Saturday and Sunday, July 8th and 9th, 9:00 Berlin time (UTC+2))”

Further more an extensive summary has been sent to the lists tdf-internal@lists.documentfoundation.org and TDF Members (tdf-members@lists.documentfoundation.org); date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:44:27 +0200, subject: “Summary/report Re: [tdf-members] Agenda for TDF in-person board meeting on Saturday and Sunday, July 8th and 9th)”

Minutes and summary are posted below here.

# Board of Directors Meeting 2023-07-08

  • Date: 2023-07-08

  • Session chair: Thorsten Behrens

  • Keeper of the minutes: Cor Nouws

Venue/video link

Timeline

  • start 9:30

  • lunch break at 13:00

  • break every 60 minutes

  • room available til 1800

9:30 Welcome & introduction

  • roll call & quorum, representations & declarations of interests
    • present on-site:
      • Board: Thorsten Behrens, Gabriel Masei, László Nemeth, Cor Nouws, Gábor Kelemen
      • Membership Committee: Miklos
    • present remotely:
      • Membership Committee: Shinji Enoki
    • representation:
      • Gabriel Masei for Ayhan Yalçınsoy
    • quorum:
      • 5 out of 7, quorum requirements met
    • interests, changes in affiliations etc
      • Thorsten, Gábor: 12:55 Online
      • Cor, Miklos: 12:55 Online
  • review & acceptance of agenda
    • agenda is accepted
    • if in doubt, focus on the process how to get a result, rather than rathole on the topic itself
  • eval/discuss/decide recording request
    • no recording, we minute properly
    • recording setup a challenge, and much nuance lost → lets stick to good minutes, more accessible anyway
    • → unanimous consent
  • approve past minutes (pending: 2023-06-26 and 2023-05-29)
    • Cor: June 26th - pending, needs brushing up, objects to publish as-is
      • AI Cor: review June 26th minutes by Monday
    • Cor: spent half a day on May 29th, recovered bits
      • good to publish - AI Thorsten ask Stephan to publish

10:10 Review & action items from [contractor for consultancy] Report

  • report: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1287527
  • all: read & extract actionable items (1h)
    • please add suggestions for to work-in-progress list: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1287528
    • all: feedback from all participants, highlight their own focus/what is important
    • Gabriel:
      • 2nd half report most important - lack of trust & commitment; resolve relationship issues
      • solutions proposed: respectful conduct, enforce them, improve engagement, governance framework
      • top prio: board dynamics, apply Nolan Principles
      • have more f2f meetings. Sadly some board members are not/cannot participate. How can we incentivize everyone
    • Cor: Some remarks on our process:
      • alas some board members are not able to join, but having all directors participating is important, so we want to give all people the opportunity to engage
      • focus on an overall sketch, find a process offering possibilities to all board members
      • but also timebox the discussion on process/action items
      • focus on Bucharest latest to decide on various
    • Shinji
      • I think the Nolan Principles are important, but I don’t know what to do to ensure that each and every board member and TDF member has the will to uphold them.

      • However, there is no mechanism to take care of it neutrally when a problem occurs in the CoC. Think that the CoC Committee is not siding with anyone and needs to be neutral based on the rules. The difficulty with the current TDF is that conflicts can occur between board members, and there is no team that can handle them neutrally.

      • also it seems the CoC committee is currently not ready/functioning?

      • It would be nice to be able to intervene early when CoC issues arise, before the problem escalates

      • think we need a system to protect psychological safety. When anyone makes an aggressive remark, it is desirable that a third party gently warns the person and corrects the aggressive remark.

        To realize the Nolan principles, we need the power to enforce them. It’s fine to arouse the conscience of board members, but we shouldn’t rely solely on it.

        Of course, it is also necessary to be careful not to let someone use the CoC for attacks.

    • László
      • added a long list of action items; connect ‘coders’ with the rest, helps better understand the importance in an open source project
      • c.f. 2.2.4.7.4 Board Diversity - culture of people not speaking up
      • division, coders & remaining community - focus on code, vs. focus on people
      • actionable:
        • facilitated in-person meetings?
        • facilitate/review/agree on core values - revisit and re-align values, for the board
        • iterative/reflective improvements of board work - self-assess and improve/therapy
        • also, look into strategic goals - and get things done there
    • Miklos
      • actionable:
        • realign & agree on core values
        • and try to re-gain trust
      • prob was, CoC committee could not handle it, due to board member involved
      • improve the policy, delegate to committee, avoid the dead locks
      • members apply, listed contacts are in the board (and that’s the only one) - creates trouble, if there’s not enough cross-collaboration, and people working in multiple areas
      • core problem: lack of trust. can we explicitly solve the trust problem
      • getting more people in to avoid having double hats, may be easier
    • Gábor:
      • a ton of useful things
      • actionable: encourage everyone to be heard, create safe space, trust, for everyone to participate fully
      • actionable: more structured way to work, better preparations of meetings and decision making
      • actionable: more informal, in-person meetings, free-form discussion about strategy & goals, also informal dinners
    • Cor:
      • values, culture, dynamics: these need improving before tools (procedures etc) really help
      • quote: ‘dysfunctional board’ - this is really clear
      • suggestion: identify the problem, then analyze how to resolve/improve. but its hard to imagine that given the current dynamics we can solve it (at least not on our own)
      • actionable
        • find external support to improve culture & dynamics
      • further details:
        • governance framework - all good
        • but: dynamics need fixing first. look at CoC, and enforce compliance to governance
        • get facilitated meetings? part of the solution
      • avoid any impression that this process would not be inclusive, and not hear/value all sides
    • Thorsten
      • revisit values via facilitated meeting
        • with the goal of improving trust and cohesion
      • come up with governance framework
      • improve/train chair (conduct/prepare meetings, manage people etc, authority)
      • improve communication in the board (Nolan principles)
  • 12::12 break (10 mins)
  • Finishing process wrt previous agenda item
    • bring the actionable items to the full board
    • AI Cor draft rough action plan from the minutes (in ~one week, ready for meeting in 2 weeks)
    • AI Thorsten then bring it up for discussion for the full board & MC
    • timeline: two weeks for action plan, conclude decision-making and improvements by Bucharest conference
  • all: review fiduciary duties & other suggestions (1h)
    • there is this folder https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1069320
      • The folder includes examples of Board Members Agreement and Code of Ethics which also contain elements that help in protecting members of staff from directors
    • and discussion on tdf-internal
      • subject is “Fwd: [tdf-internal] [tdf-members] Update/Repost: Board of Directors Meeting 2023-03-20”
      • last post: May 15th
    • summary discussions so far, including tdf-internal
      • Paolo suggested it initially
        • there is a Board Member Code of Ethics document, which comes from the FSF
        • there is a Voting Members Code of Ethics (same)
        • there is a board member agreement (same)
        • there is a roles and responsibilities for the board (from NH Center for Nonprofits, 2013)
        • there is a Introduction to Managing a Nonprofit document (from some Capital Management Foo)
      • Cor questioned it, from the PoV that they would be common-sense - and being far from sure that it would actually help the board, but… started to cooperate nevertheless
      • Cor asks for them to be clear, actionable, and consistent with other regulations
        • e.g. exclusions from discussions clashes with COI policy
      • Paolo seems to agree that adopting the Nolan Principles would be beneficial
      • Gabriel: focus on - three modes of governance - fiduciary(ovesight)/strategic(foresight)/generative(insight)
      • László: perhaps - with the issues the FSF had with their governance - there is some good ideas there to copy?
  • proposed solution & process
    • there is an ongoing discussion; last input: mail from Cor, May 15th
    • AI Thorsten ask Paolo (who took initiative) to answer the suggestion on the content of these duties (Cor’s email May 15)
    • if that seems to be leading to consensus, we can proceed (timeline: 2 weeks)
      • AI Thorsten next board call, discuss combined proposal
    • if consent seems to be far out of sight, fall back to Nolan Principles (also mentioned by [contractor for consultancy])
      • and work on make that fit nicely for TDF
  • in order to get to decisions on our meetings in Bucharest, we need to agree on a clear procedure, time-line & steps, allowing input from relevant sides, time for thinking and discussion etc (30 mins)
  • outcome: list of ToDos, decision on clear procedure
    • items collected from above, to arrive at a clean summary:
    • AI Cor draft rough action plan from the minutes (in ~one week, ready for meeting in 2 weeks)
    • AI Thorsten then bring it up for discussion for the full board & MC
      • timeline: two weeks for action plan, conclude decision-making and improvements by Bucharest conference
    • AI Thorsten ask Paolo (who took initiative) to answer the suggestion on the content of these fiduciary duties (c.f. Cor’s email May 15)
      • if that seems to be leading to consensus, we can proceed (timeline: 2 weeks)
    • AI Thorsten next board call, discuss combined proposal
      • if consent seems to be far out of sight, fall back to Nolan Principles (also mentioned by [contractor for consultancy])
      • and work on make that fit nicely for TDF

12:55 Online

  • LOOL and the message / decision there. Status update (25 mins) (all)
  • outcome: board is aware of current status, next steps are listed
  • board to ask Florian to execute decision from last year, AI László to follow-up with Florian
  • (unrelated) AI Thorsten follow-up with Florian, it seems many board decisions are not yet published on the wiki
  • status/next steps
    • collect information & status

13:00 Lunch Break

14:00 Board marketing & communication

  • improve board communication - collecting additional items (all) (15mins)
    • board newsletter → very useful!
      • no action needed (but keep it!)
    • townhall meetings (facilitated by the MC) - usually requires a lot of time, tends to happen around the elections
      • no action needed (but keep it)
    • explain decisions better, in particular when they take a long time (e.g. ESC tendering, CoC decision, [contractor for consultancy])
      • actions needed:
        • outline & background document, explaining the road to decision
        • explain dissent, allow dissenters to state / write dissenting opinion
        • AI Cor: draft a template to allow for that - is there something we can clone from other orgs?
    • board member recruiting / outreach / mentoring
      • (also applies for the MC)
      • increase diversity (both for members, but also candidates & board/MC members)
      • action needed:
        • invite community members into dedicated working groups
        • show the nice & interesting & happy sides of the board work, and focus on the nice human side
        • have a historical perspective, and show how much impact / results board work has
        • celebrate past achievements & past boards - give credit
        • AI Thorsten sit down with TDF marketing & propose some concrete first steps
  • minutes (all) (15mins)
    • currently the directors need to spent considerable time to check drafts
    • find a professional?
    • word-by-word protocol - good per se, but that’s not enough, nor needed per se
    • clear summary important: makes minutes accessible to others as well
    • Shinji: Board discussions sometimes feel confusing. Easier to understand with a summary of purpose and background information
    • Shinji: if possible, it is desirable to have such information on the agenda already
      • It is helpful to distinguish between conclusions, discussions, and information sharing. It might be nice to have a label.
    • AI Thorsten iterate minute taking, improve from status quo with staff - review in 2 months
  • community interactions (all) (15mins)
    • calls
      • Cor: ask people to identify - not nice to talk to anonymous folks
      • László: even for people on the autism spectrum, they can type in the chat
      • Cor: we want to be open & welcoming, so lets discourage that (anonymous participation)
      • AI Thorsten welcome people, ask identification & video-on (at least when speaking) - revisit in 2 months time
    • members-only board call section?
      • Miklos: in written form, already there - with board-discuss, tdf-internal, directors@
      • Miklos: there may be value in having the same for board calls
      • AI Thorsten have three sections in the board calls
        • public
        • members
          • (use that as a good opportunity to explain members what&why we do it)
        • board-private (with invited experts)
    • László: check best practice in other FLOSS foundations or in textbooks
    • Gábor: make meetings longer, give more time for questions? Thorsten: also consider alternating time slots?
      • having meetings better prepared (structure, proposals, …) makes the whole more accessible too (see above)
      • AI Thorsten try to implement at least one of the two
  • board-discuss situation, and external moderation (all) (15mins)
    • discussed the status
    • current status is not very attractive, when trying to encourage members to run for the board
    • agreement on next steps: lets try to improve here
    • AI Cor organize meeting with people willing to moderate (as external moderators) (plus László, Thorsten, Gábor)
  • outcome: agreement on next steps
    • see action items
  • 16:10 break

16:20 Staff & team items

  • Long discussion on TDF internal regarding a meeting of directors that took place some two years ago.

    • Cor: part of the staff seems to be unhappy as a result of the communication on tdf-internal wrt the internal meeting
    • Thorsten: slightly different take - there seems to be long-lasting unhappiness, that was never properly addressed. Recent events did not improve things.
    • True as well (Cor)
    • events did not improves well
  • Related to that, there is the following resolution, that passed recently, and that needs action:

  • Resolution creating Staff-Board-Policy:

    • 1. Gathering input (4 weeks)

      • What experiences, wishes, hopes, goals are there, that should
        benefit from guidelines, rules, procedures in the to be written
        policy?
      • Input is asked from members of staff, MC, Board of Directors, Board
        of Trusties, Advisory Board, and the community.
      • People are asked to state - if relevant to them - which items
        are more or less urgent or important in their view.
      • Of course input based on experiences, existing policies etc is
        welcome as well.
      • We expect all ideas to be brought in with positive intention, and
        shaped/written as such. Questions for clarification are fine.
        Discussion if certain input is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, is not asked
        for in this phase.
      • People who want to provide anonymous input with e.g. experiences,
        are advised to find another community member that want to write
        something as an example, case, or whatever.

      2. Writing of the draft (2 months)

      • Boards work, that can of course seek assistance.

      3. Gathering feedback (2 weeks)

      • Everyone involved.

      4. Writing the almost final version (3 weeks)

      5. Last check: feedback from those who engaged in phase 3 (1 weeks)

      6. Vote (1 weeks)

  • draft communication for the above step 1, decide on who does what (all) (1h)

    • Cor (see below)
    • but perhaps have this reviewed by e.g. Italo?
  • outcome: concrete results to kick-off step 1

    • AI Cor publish the vote, kick off the gathering of input - approach AB as well (put a slide into AB call, at the 19th), and - allow both public, and directors@ input gathering
  • team interactions - how to resolve long-standing issues (all) (1h)

    • it is clear that this has not improved over the last years
    • Cor: it is the board’s responsibility to take care of that and run the process to improve that
    • Shinji: there may be questions or dissatisfaction with the operation of the Board of Directors. I think it’s good to find ways for them to feel comfortable expressing their opinions. Suggesting trusted 3rd party/outside expert to conduct that
    • Thorsten: yes, that’s the idea
    • Cor: in meetings staff & board(members), these are surely expressed
    • Shinji: it is also important to convey the message that indeed the board wants to solve the problem. Communicate a willingness to solve the problem based on feedback, rather than throwing it to outside experts.
  • outcome: agreement on next steps

    • it seems inevitable, given the situation, that we need to find external expertise, with experience in HR, workplace harassment, and motivational/inspiring environments
    • this help will then not be affected with issues of (dis)trust that make the process harder for the people in board/staff themselves
    • AI Gabriel ask for referrals at [company name]
    • AI Cor ask [contractor for consultancy] for a referral
    • AI Thorsten ask German business contacts for a referral
  • give vision and direction and purpose, for staff

    • László: we need to find something motivating, guiding
    • László: everyone wants to find purpose, do meaningful work
    • Thorsten: that will require more than just doing a bit of mobile or online
    • Cor: there may be some message behind that they ask to work on mobile…?
      • maybe also related to generic feeling of unhappiness?
    • Gábor: seems team has the feeling we’re not going anywhere (with the board)?
      • and the project is just stable: downloads and QA are sort of stable
  • outcome: agreement on next steps

    • postpone after fixing the first two issues - AI all revisit in Bucharest
    • AI Gabor sit down with Ilmari/Stephane - can we have a workshop in Bucharest, where/how to spread out & attract more interest
  • Conference meeting planning…
    Cor: do we need extra slots (reserve) at the conference? On Saturday, after the closing session perhaps?

  • AI Gabriel please figure out if there’s a room possible

17:55 End of Day I

(more in next comment)

Board of Directors Meeting 2023-07-09

  • Date: 2023-07-09
  • Session chair: Thorsten Behrens
  • Keeper of the minutes: Cor Nouws

Venue/video link

Timeline

  • start 9:30
  • lunch break at 13:00
  • break every 60 minutes
  • room available til 1800

9:30 Welcome & introduction

  • For reimbursement of costs, pls go to https://refunds.documentfoundation.org/
  • roll call & quorum, representations & declarations of interests
    • present on-site:
      • Board: Thorsten Behrens, Gabriel Masei, László Nemeth, Cor Nouws, Gábor Kelemen
    • present remotely:
      • Membership Committee: Shinji Enoki
    • representation:
      • Gabriel Masei for Ayhan Yalçınsoy
    • quorum:
      • 5 out of 7, quorum requirements met
    • interests:
      • Thorsten/Gábor: legal topics, depending on details
      • Cor: legal topics, depending on details
  • review & acceptance of agenda
    • agenda accepted
    • AI Thorsten discuss Bucharest meeting schedule next board call
  • approve minutes from yesterday (https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1291634)
    • needs some time, lets leave as draft til Monday

9:45 Misc Items

The following items are pending since a while, quick status review &
volunteers to move things forward requested. If in doubt, lets shelve
and focus on the easy ones:

  • apply with LibreOffice as a digital public good
  • check further fund-raising opportunities
    • motion: ask staff to collect a suitable list (e.g. EU, and nation-level grants)
    • all here in support
    • AI Thorsten ask Florian to come up with a list (review progress in 2 months)
  • 10:02 László joins
  • FSF AB seat - further postpone or not?
    • there was a larger discussion, it seems a very, very contentious decision
    • Cor summarizes the situation at FSF
    • Thorsten: two suggestions - leave that decision to the next board - or restart conversation (that has happened, reached out to [FSF leadership]), and decide when facts are on the table
      • clearly there are positive changes at FSF meanwhile
      • but: highly controversial, hard to reconcile both sides
    • Shinji: I don’t understand the details, but it looks like the FSF hasn’t resolved the governance issue yet. Stallman, who seems to be proud of his racist behavior, is still on the board.
      • There is no doubt that there was a discriminatory problem with his actions. Even Stallman acknowledged it. But it seemed to me that he retracted his earlier apologies when he returned.
    • discuss: quick poll on board opinion
      • Thorsten: can’t decide in this case, needs more/background info → we need to talk
      • Gabriel: keep the status quo, wait for further information
      • Cor: agrees, and start talking to [them];
        (in general does not like to base a decision heavily on an item ‘being controversial’)
      • László: better to wait, and ask [them] for a lot of background info
      • Shinji: TDF must avoid the risk of being falsely perceived as endorsing discriminatory practices. Therefore, I think there should be sufficient evidence that there is no problem with the governance of FSF.
      • Gábor: agree lets not rush that, and see what they answer
      • review status by LibOCon
      • AI Thorsten update board on progress & timeline ([FSF staff on leave currently])
      • further steps need to be informed by that
  • CoC committee and policy - status update, enforceability issues with policy
    • https://www.documentfoundation.org/code-of-conduct/
    • discuss: next steps
    • status: committee and policy got put in place at last LibOCon
      • policy is published
      • prelim committee is in place, tasked to refine policy and recruit/complete the committee
      • Cor: Board approached the committee with suggestions & questions, but there was no answer (Subject: Finishing the new CoC Policy/ Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:36:05 +0200)
      • All: no idea about the status, no updates received
      • before starting improvements ourselves, would be great to get a status, and some idea on update plans
      • Cor: also [contractor for consultancy] suggested to improve CoC policy, and adopt it to be helpful for the board as well (mentioned yesterday)
      • Thorsten: permanent exclusion (and perhaps even temporary exclusion) violate statutes and German charitable law, so they are not enforceable by the CoC committee (the board of trustees need to do that)
      • Gábor: can we handle it via https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Membership ?
    • next steps
  • outcome: agreement on next steps, vote on the easy bits
    • see above
  • 11:00 break

11:15 Strategic goals for TDF

Important & urgent:

  1. Double number of developers
  2. Significantly increase contributions from non-EU citizens & entities
  3. In 2 years, get 2 additional companies into project

Important, but not urgent :

5. 10% of project budget decided on i.e. voted by members

6. Substantially increase diversity in the project

7. Teaching LO programming & coding details by university - computer science subject

  • Status update (all, 30mins)
    • strategy item volunteers give an update on current status
    • owners: see deck
    • Cor: created a table, for each of the items, for people to join & want to help - it’s available to all members. Clearly this is not just the board, but ~everyone is invited! Overview: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129830
    • Gabriel: there should be someone to drive all of this?
    • Thorsten: wrt board, there is https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/deck/#/board/62
    • Gabriel: should/must that be driven by the board?
    • Cor: we started last year, preparations where made, was shared with full membership. Did some work on some of those items. Obvious question: why hasn’t there be any substantial progress?
    • Cor: hmm, it looks like, as a board, we failed to get enough board attention (free time) to work on those? Previously the board never got to it, it was on the agenda, but fell off the table, due to ‘more urgent’ matters
    • László: status on #1. and #3. (more devs, attract companies)
      • call for papers, more attractive for companies & research. Create attention, would have been an ideal occasion to attract companies/people!Do things to be more attractive, show scientific approach
      • mentioned on the mailing list, there might be new companies/outsourcing companies - invited them to the conference to Bucharest!
      • some client contacts, he can invite to Bucharest
    • Gabriel: status on #1. and #3. some contacts, company from [location], interested in building a small team
      • invited them to the conference
      • but status there is a bit unclear
    • László: COOL days presentations, some new faces there!
      • perhaps 4-5 new developers?
      • that is counter-balanced though with people leaving the project
    • Shinji
      • Which of the following four is easier to achieve to increase the number of developers? Increased number of volunteers, hired by user organizations, hired by ecosystem companies, hired by TDF?
    • Gabriel: status on teaching LibreOffice (Strategic Item #7.)
      • will have a workshop during the conference
      • asked how to collaborate with the University, over the longer term - they are interested in collaborating with commercial entities, but also open to work with OpenSource entities
      • currently in exploration phase - don’t yet know how to actually collaborate
      • use the workshops as PoC, then discuss with them, starting from the PoC, how to continue
        • ideal outcome: have LibreOffice core development as part of the curriculum
      • problem is, not as easy to work with them as expected. but: good work there for promotions
        • except from one professor, didn’t get much/any feedback yet from them…
        • AI Cor happy to look with Gabriel at possibilities to nurture that opportunity
      • another directions, with a local NGO (Strategic Item #6 ?)
        • approached them for getting support for visa, sponsorship etc for the conference
        • [open source NGO].
        • will meet with [university contact] - they’re comprised of professors and students from the university
        • same approach, suggested a collaboration – [name] promised to come back with a plan within a month. Meanwhile, we should collect ideas what we can offer
        • asked them for help in promoting the conference and the workshop between the students. Received a positive feedback.
        • might open doors with other NGOs and, most important, in students world. They have connections with multiple students organisations.
        • AI Gabriel collect ideas & input, what we can offer
        • Cor: lets approach staff, if we can replicate that in other countries/venues?
      • AI Gabriel approach team (Italo/Hossein/Ilmari) for input on proposal
    • Cor: update on number #3 (extra ecosystem companies) - imagine there is an area for use in LibreOffice development - where nothing much happens? But: if there’s companies, who could be using LibreOffice, if that specific area for use would be better?
      • e.g. database area - if they could benefit, generate business?
      • then TDF could create tenders around those kind of improvements, and encourage/approach the companies?
      • mailed two persons from network, related to database usage, asking for their input; one responded; but was not a match that I was looking for.
      • big open question: what makes LibreOffice attractive? if there’s money on the table of course. there has to be business opportunity etc - so: what other areas are there, for LibreOffice would be useful?
      • AI Thorsten team up with Cor to develop that a bit more
    • Shinji: In fact, the Japanese community has changed members significantly in the last two years. The biggest change outside of the early days of LibreOffice. Unfortunately, overall activity seems to be declining. The number of new contributors joining is lower than those leaving
      • The number of TDF developers depends on the amount of donations, so it might be possible if the number of downloads increases.
    • Gábor: just approved new tendering process - use that as a springboard for new companies to invest in LibreOffice
      • invite/promote the tenders, during the LibreOffice conference
    • László: with the new budget, there is a ranking/voting by community (#4, 10% budget for community)
      • looks like it’s done
      • AI all evaluate progress & effectiveness in a year’s time
      • Thorsten let me update the documents there
    • Thorsten: some things are in progress, nothing concrete
      • there’s a spectrum - so any company that directly contributes to any of the TDF projects would count (not limited to code contributions, can be ask/user support, QA, translations, extensions etc) - as long as it’s done by paid staff there
  • lunch break: 12:30 til 14:00
  • Work on individual items (all, 1h)
    • update nextcloud according to status update → done
    • work on action items → in progress
    • delegate / ask for help where needed
  • 12:15 break
  • Full list with items, initially put together in June 2022: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/deck/#/board/49
    • direct democracy
    • catch up with industry
    • move away from desktop
    • 10% of project budget decided by members
    • incentivize voting by members
    • lobby EU for more LibreOffice use
    • find new markets and users
    • double number of developers
    • be on every students’s computing device
    • be among top 5 EU orgs for FOSS and digisov questions
    • have teaching LibO be on the course canon for EU learning institutions
    • have ODF docs advertized on EU gov pages
    • rework project / toolchain, to improve on-ramp
    • increase contributions from non-EU citizens
    • increase community metrics
    • spend 10% on education
    • be fully interoperable
    • further professionalize the org
    • increase number of in-person community meetings
    • brand and logo refresh
    • marketing to differentiate between product and project
    • increase diversity
    • get 2 additional companies into project
    • become largest FOSS community w/o larger conflicts
  • promote additional items, to work on? (all, 30mins)
  • outcome: board is aware of current status, next steps are listed (all, 15mins)
    • see above

13:00 Lunch Break

14:00 Strategic goals for TDF - work on individual items

  • Work on individual items (all, 1h)
    • update nextcloud according to status update
    • work on action items
    • delegate / ask for help where needed
  • Observations / candidate for new action items:
    • no mentor/no responsible
      • number #6 is a bit under-mentored -
      • AI Thorsten to approach volunteers on item #2 for interest
    • AI Thorsten archive Strategy deck (after copying all information out into ODT files)
    • AI László to poke Khaled and Sophie to market/advertize the new initiatives around non-Latin script improvements
    • AI László propose metric tool to measure increase in number of developers, using fornalder (https://carlschwan.eu/2023/04/28/health-of-the-kde-community-2023-update/)
    • AI Cor reach out to Hossein wrt item #1 - since it is core to his role
    • AI Cor reach out to Italo/Mike, getting an overview of past PR work, so we can learn from the past
    • AI Cor sit down with Thorsten on making it interesting for businesses to join (#3)
    • AI Thorsten invite directors not present during this meeting to engage with strategic goals

15:35 Review legal backlog

  • check what is still relevant, discuss legal backlog handling (all, 30mins)
    • how to move on with: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/apps/deck/#/board/32
    • Cor: same as for board/staff policy - we draft a simple procedure, where stakeholders can give feedback and input wrt items that they consider needs an update, change, addition in statues, rules, procedures.
    • It is already years that now and then items are brought up, but it has never come to any action…
    • gathering input from all sides, allows to handle the desired changes in relation - which to me seems a wise thing.
  • outcome: agreement on next steps
    • AI Thorsten make deck available to full board
    • AI Cor draft a simple procedure, where stakeholders can give feedback and input for the board to use
    • AI Thorsten extract items to feed into Cor’s process proposal
    • AI Thorsten collect leftover items, and propose a vote to have them handled in bulk by lawyer/law firm
  • 15:45 break

15:55 TDF’s Manifesto

  • in order to get to a decision in Bucharest, we need a procedure, time-line & steps,
    • allowing input from relevant sides, time for thinking and discussion etc.
  • what already has been done:
  • review & status update (Cor, 30mins)
    • there was an initiative in 2021 and 2022, to update the manifesto
    • that was sadly ending in a stallmate & stuck in the mud
    • Cor: sometimes people refer to the manifesto as a proof that TDF must, or must not, do one or another. Obviously, that makes writing a new manifesto a sensitive activity: will it, when ready, help/allow people to enforce their ideas on how to do certain things onto others?
    • Thorsten: Uwe in the end gave up mediating the process, since the manifesto was entirely anodyne & without anything substantial left
    • Cor: for any new attempts at manifesto writing, we need to be aware of those concerns
    • Shinji: I think the manifesto should show the goals and vision of TDF. However, the revised draft previously discussed did not meet those requirements. It shouldn’t be a patchwork of people’s comments. The current manifesto is very good. Most of them look fine as is.
    • Thorsten: this manifesto can be outward facing marketing. contrary to e.g. statures that are inward: they tell us how we need to work. Recognizing this may help. But of course a good mission, shared vision, would be a great inward worth to bring people together. My concern is though, that this will be extremely hard to agree on.
    • Shinji: If TDF’s mission is digital sovereignty or the democratization of documentation, I think it should be updated. If everyone agrees on the goal of digital sovereignty or the democratization of documentation, I think Italo would be the best to write the draft.
    • Shinji: Before writing a draft manifesto, why not discuss whether our goals should be more abstract and contain high-level concepts?
  • discuss procedure, time-line & next steps (all, 1h)
    • László: how about we start with celebrating the last decade, and all our successes?
    • Cor: the board to put together a list of uncontroversial items (perhaps amended by list of things that are controversial) - and have a talented marketing copy-writer to come up with a catchy manifesto?
      • Gábor: hmm, but that seems to have failed in the past?
      • Cor: suggests to really hire some external copy-writer, or appoint a committee, or…
    • Thorsten: suggests to trust Italo with the initial draft, given he has all the background information necessary
    • Gabriel: also considering Uwe, who was very instrumental with the last drafting
      • problem is, he’s ~offline for another 6 weeks, travelling the US
    • Thorsten: timeline for that - we need a reasonably final draft by Bucharest - which is ~2 months from now
      • so, first draft due in 1 month - if Italo is fine with helping the board with this
      • if yes, schedule a workshop at LibOCon, circulate the draft at least 1 week in advance
      • have a moderated workshop to finalize & ratify - defer details to Italo
  • outcome: agreement on next steps, prepare session for Bucharest
    • see above, and include absent directors in this plan!
    • AI Thorsten briefly discuss during next board call
  • 16:45 break

16:55 Cross-check Board actions with Surveys

  • surveys conducted by MC
  • as presented in 2021:
  • any updates & actions? (all/MC: 15mins)
    • any plans to update/run the survey again?
    • lets go over the survey, review every input, and give a status update
  • cross-check & review board actions and priorities with member feedback (all, 30mins)
    • done - since there was no priorities, hard to align precisely
    • but the board found a lot of overlap with in particular community and governance wishes, and the current board focus
  • outcome: agreement on alignment and next steps
    • agree there is broad alignment with survey results
    • next steps:
      • AI Thorsten clarify no data / needs input lines with MC / relevant sub-projects
      • AI Thorsten approach other teams (MC/staff/QA project) on status
        • that way, encourage people, such that they may be inclined to engage with certain topics
      • AI Shinji request feedback on status skia/rendering/Japanese writing problems, from his community
      • AI Thorsten prepare board resolution to ask staff for running the survey again, to see if impression improved
        • make sure that any new survey will result in a prioritized list
      • AI all go over the file https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1003308 - after initial review by Cor - by next board call

17:55 Any unfinished business

  • items from leftover bits below - or
  • alternatively buffer for agenda over-runs

18:00 End of Day II

  • adjourned 18:02

(more in next comment)

Summary meeting

Summary of in person meeting Board of Directors

The Board of Directors met in person on Saturday July 8 and Sunday July 9 in Budapest. The MC was invited to join.

  • From the board,
    Present: Thorsten Behrens, Gabriel Masei, László Nemeth, Cor Nouws, Gábor Kelemen
    Not present: Emiliano Vavassori, Paolo Vecchi.
  • From the Membership Committee
    Present: Miklos Vajna (Saturday), Shinji Enoki (remotely)

On July 8 and 9 the board held a face-to-face meeting in Budapest. It was initiated by Gábor early March to take place in April, May, but clearly there were some delays in organizing all.

The board had good time to pay attention to quite some topics, enjoy each others presence, and I share a summary here.

Governance review
We started with looking at the governance review done by [contractor for consultancy]. Directors mentioned what in their opinion are the clearest and most important recommendations to work on.
Quite often mentioned are resolving relationship issues, improve engagement and respectful conduct, Nolan Principles and more governance framework.
There will be a first action plan, built of the opinions discussed in the meeting. Since it is important that all directors engage, that will be brought to the full board for discussion, allowing also directors not attending the meeting in Budapest to engage.

Online
The boards realizes its decision from last year for formalizing atticization status is not yet executed. It will pay attention to that.

Board marketing & communication
Various ongoing items and ideas in this broad area were discussed.

  • Board news letter and townhall meetings (around elections) are considered very useful and efforts appreciated.
  • Improvements are possible wrt explanation of decisions, e.g. when they take a longer time or are more complex. We’ll work on a sort template with background, process and also room for minority positions.
  • Communication also influences how people may be interested to stand for the board (or likewise the MC). So finding ways to have people engaging around certain topics, showing also the nice and human side and results of our work, could maybe result in more people from a diverse background being interested.
  • For the boards meetings we still need to improve on minuting. Wrt interactions with the community in the public calls, it is in line with an open and welcoming approach if participants tell who they are and that people who speak turn on the camera. For certain topics a members-only part is considered relevant.
  • Thinking about encouraging members to run for the board: the situation on board-discuss will regularly not be experienced as attractive. There is still the plan to investigate possibilities for external moderation. That needs a follow up too.

Staff & team items

  • The decision to that defines the process to work on a board-staff-policy needs publishing. It is useful to do that with sending an extra message out, reviewed by e.g. Italo, to encourage people to participate in the process, starting with giving input.
  • The board carefully discussed interaction with the team. The will clearly is to resolve long-standing issues. And of course it is also the boards responsibility to take care of the situation. The recent discussion on TDF internal regarding a meeting of directors that took place some two years ago, also shows the clear signals of a longer lasting unhappiness among team members.
    It seems just a very good idea, given the situation, that we need to find additional expertise, with experience in HR, workplace harassment, and creating happy, fulfilling environments. This helps avoiding issues of (dis)trust that make the process harder for the people in board/staff themselves. The board will work carefully on the process, obviously also engaging with staff.
  • Also briefly touched was the area ‘vision, direction and purpose’. The idea is that this is best discussed in more detail with the team after progress on the two issues mentioned above is made. The conference in Bucharest seems the natural moment to meet and discuss this again.

Miscellaneous items

  • Apply with LibreOffice as a digital public good. This has been discussed late April on the tdf-internal list, and LibreOffice clearly meets the standard. Vote on this (in Discourse/board-discuss).
  • Check further fund-raising opportunities. Has been mentioned several times over the years. All seem in support, so let’s start working on this.
  • The AB seat of FSF is still suspended after the fierce public debate some years ago. Some time ago the board approached [new FSF leadership], to learn about how the situation evolves. It is expected that she will be available pretty soon - after having enjoyed parental leave. We are interested in that contact, and will do a follow up on LibOCOn latest.
  • CoC committee and policy. The board was informed that there are enforceability issues with the CoC policy. Also [contractor for consultancy] suggested to improve CoC policy, making it more helpful for the board itself. Finally the Board approached the committee with suggestions & questions. Since we have no idea about the status, before starting working on improvements, we’ll approach the CoC committee for an update.

Strategic goals for TDF
These have been discussed and defined in 2022. The work on those started but didn’t get enough attention.
The board takes the opportunity of the face-to-face meeting to look make some progress here.

  • Important & urgent:
  1. Double number of developers
  2. Significantly increase contributions from non-EU citizens & entities
  3. In 2 years, get 2 additional companies into project
  • Important, but not urgent:
  1. 10% of project budget decided on i.e. voted by members
  2. Substantially increase diversity in the project
  3. Teaching LO programming & coding details by university - computer science subject

The source of information for all these is
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129829.
The board again wants to encourage members to look and participate whenever possible.
We think, having clearer communication in the future, should help to increase activity and engagement to make progress on these important strategic items.

Review legal backlog
Over the years, various legal topics have been recognized that need an update or a check. For example with statues, bylaws, various procedures.
Handling those more or less at the same time, in relation to each other, seems the most sensible approach. The board will start creating a clear process for that, making it easy to collect input from various sides.

TDF’s Manifesto
Over the past years, there were various attempts to write TDF’s new ‘Next Decade Manifesto’ The first one* served us well, but the decade is over, and alas the efforts for the new one didn’t yield a clear
result yet.
In hindsight, the board considers that apparently topics on which clearly diverging opinions exist, were playing a large role in that process. So it could be a successful approach to really focus on the shared ideals, visions. Having a text proposed by an external copywriter could be one way to have this done, but would need that person to be instructed and understand what is a sort of controversial and what not. Maybe it is feasible to find someone in the community to help? Needs to be further discussed and a plan to finish the process, ideally, in Bucharest.
*) TDF/Next Decade Manifesto - The Document Foundation Wiki

Cross-check Board actions with Surveys
The MC conducted a survey in the wider community and presented the results* in 2021.
*) https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1003299
Of course the outcome of the survey did have attention already.
During the meeting the directors again looked at the results section ‘improving and contributing’, also from the perspective of the ongoig board actions and priorities.
It is good to notice that many are getting attention from team, board, wider community already or even finished. For other items, more work is needed, and with checking the survey outcome, that becomes clearer.
The survey result section with the more ‘open comments’ will be checked in a similar way during the coming weeks.

The board is grateful toward Gábor for initiating the meeting and to members of staff in helping organizing it.