and just get silence in return ? 
→ https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/how-do-i-donate-via-check/126681
We cannot be on all the forums all the time, otherwise we‘d do no other work. There are way too many channels to follow, including social media.
The poster‘s question is answered on our very donate page - cheques are a problem to cash in.
any remedy in view ?
You can always ping me if you see something like that left unanswered.
It’s not so easy. People prefer different channels. Some like e-mail,
other social media, other prefer messengers. We try to bridge channels
when possibe (e.g. Matrix and Telegram), but in the end, with a big
community and lots of users, there is a large amount of mails that is
hard to follow-up. It’s easier when it’s on one channel, but even that
quite tough…
I doubt it’s just about channel preferences;
but to go with concrete examples, what’s your take on these :
(not to rewind the whole story, but to ponder what (would) make TDF immune from such a … silences ?)
That question sort of distracts from the main topic of this thread.
There are many topics where I also would have loved to get feedback from the wider community, e.g. the removal of Emiliano as a former deputy chairperson, the CoI against Paolo, the forced moderation of board-discuss, the open letter regarding LibreOffice Online, the published minutes and decisions, the legal review of an MC decision, various verbal public attacks against community members by some, and many, many more.
The topic you mention, however, has been explained and legally assessed, so there is little I can add. It is also not me who can decide anything here.
The irony of it: The person you refer to was involved in a staff policy. From what I understand, that would have required members of staff to not challenge the board’s decisions in public (and we are aware of an “interesting” situation even when challenging certain topics in private, too). While thankfully this board has a much different approach, I have to assume it would be in the person’s interest if I stay “neutral” on this topic - unless once again, double standards would be applied in our community.
@floeff, I mentionned 2 topics, sharing links to them so that potential readers know what the topics are,
and explicitely mentionned " not to rewind the whole story ", which I could rephrase as “not to distract from the OP here”.
To move forward, it would be nice to exchange concrete info rather vaguely mentionning stuff only people with decade long practice of Sun/OO/LO structures can understand.
So, to rephrase my remark about staying silent :
- how can we clarify (write down somewhere like statutes or inlaws or elsewhere) that the board ultimately decides the results of MC election ?
- how can we prevent MC (as an entity, or its members) not to answer to a board member ?
and in general, what shared process(es) can be put in place to avoid these more or less convenient silences ?
§ 12 II of our statutes say that the election shall be prepared and supervised by the board of directors. This is what happened.
The question was a “trustee question”, not a question from the board. Shall, in your view, trustees who are board members get a preferential treatment?
I think it is good practice to not discuss details about individual membership applications in public. Imagine someone applying, not being qualified enough, and that was debated in public - that would be odd for that person.
sounds like a big stretch with “removed a candidate after he got elected”, but again not to rewind the story : how do you keep track of such Jurisprudenz ? (was there any precedent ?)
and do you prevent such case to happen ?
silence is just no treatment at all, and keeping this limbo all over the place is not a good look. from bugzilla UNCONFIRMED, ghost redmine, desert IRC, to outdated wiki/web pages,
it should be adressed structurally to move forward.
The best way to prevent similar situations would be for members of TDF’s bodies to avoid creating serious legal issues for TDF.
The reasons that made it impossible to get that candidate seated have been explained extensively.
Would adding a challenging phase, to remove candidates that shouldn’t have put forward their candidacy, before the voting phase solve your concerns and allow all of us to move forward?
okay. what do you recommend for that ?
I guess.
at least it will show it’s not just BAU.
again what form could that concretely take ?
are where is that to be consolidated ? statutes ?
There’s nothing structural about those. Those are just a matter of priorities and ordinary, often boring and thankless, work. In the original post by Florian, he called for criticism to be constructive and to not forget to give positive feedback. Your remark ignores these points. Surely you understand there is an endless amount of the type of janitorial work you refer to. I have seen you constantly cherry-picking examples from this endless pool, seemingly framing them as some sort of humiliating examples of neglect.
If you truly want to move the project forward, do you really think mocking and humiliating fellow contributors is the most effective way to go about it?
I believe that the majority of this board has shown that it shouldn’t have been treated as BAU and took an exceptional decision to deal with the issue in the best possible way.
Before reiterating my ideas and the proposals I’ve made in the past I would be very interested in knowing what is your take on it.
well, if it’s available somewhere, please just link here, and let’s see how to make it searchable for future interested readers.
I’ve personally no idea what would be realistic, reasonable, useful …;
(I’m still trying to understand why Bylaws are outdated)
just, limbo is no good look at all;
oh good then.
maybe one day priorities would be shared.
and I’m not gonna follow your outrageous style; and I dont pretend to know anything “most effective”.
just ask yourself why this topic is about “unblock”, and what our fellow users, new comers, contributors, think about the non reponses they constanly face.
and to follow your metaphor, would be nice to improve the way our fellow users are made aware of janitorial tasks, so that they don’t get too much caught in the way.

Can we please tone down this discussion? Otherwise this thread will go havoc.
Like these?
- From the machine room of TDF: A1 confirmations
- From the machine room of TDF: artist social security (KSK)
- From the machine room of TDF: federal bank AWV Z4 filings
- TDF Budgeting How-To (version 20250708-01)
- TDF Board Onboarding How-To (version 20250709-01)
- Training materials on how to run TDF
- Proposal for changes to travel refund accounting process
- The administration of a nonprofit organisation
- A look behind some administrative scenes at TDF

sure, at some point. (then how would they be comprehensovely linked to the wiki? maybe you could tag them “howto”?)
as previously said, I’m far from there yet. (is the ByLaws question adressed in there? is there a howto for the 2026 report?)
the ones I’m able to point so far are more directly user related.