As one of its tasks, the current board is looking into decisions and meeting minutes taken in the past that were not yet published according to our statutes. What follows are previously private minutes from the 2023-02-06 (in person) meeting of the previous board, which are now made public. Some elements in the minutes might be redacted as there is a need for confidentiality, or as individuals are mentioned in specific contexts.
Disclaimer: The following private minutes from the previous board are published as is. They have not necessarily been confirmed by the respective session’s chairperson or keeper of the minutes, nor approved by the respective board.
0913 Begin
0914-1000: Board/MC joint meeting, Q&A
Questions and answers around the legal advice, from the MC
- board gives background & answers questions
Decision: [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] statement, plus the [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] document, to be shared with MC subset who has received the earlier analysis:
- Marina, Gustavo, Gabriel, Shinji, Uwe
###(09:30)all minutes above were deleted from ? Please let me know when I should resume minuting###
- board OK to share [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] statement with non-conflicted MC members → done
- board OK to share full [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] statement with non-conflicted MC members → done
- board OK to share tender contracts with non-conflicted MC members → done
- board OK to have Q&A call with laywers to get questions answered and next steps to take explained → AI: needs organizing
ideally shared - board OK to share Audit request with MC → done
10:35 coffee break till 10:55
- massive spill over (Thorsten)
- almost all is urgent matter
- try to have another remote meeting on short notice (Thorsten)
1000-1005: Misc pending work
- interest statements
- review Tuesday agenda
1005-1200:
- Tender process - WIP
- possibly re-convene Tuesday morning
- explaining history and where coming from (Florian)
- back to 2021
- [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] statement
- [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] came in to assess tender process
- what was the input? (Thorsten)
- how to do procurement in a proper way (Florian)
- several angles here (Thorsten)
- background dealings may exist
- not my perception
- someone briefed the lawyer in this way?
- same expression (Cor)
- interest in making sure working in fixing it
- suggest to understand TDF
- hint how external understand the situation (Emiliano)
- have to be in line with legislation
- board working on improving it (Cor)
- specific situation of TDF
- TDF important for TDF and vice versa
- fear that Cor’s doc not fits (Emiliano)
- tendering is closes market (Paolo)
- so sth wrong
- from a legal POV TDF is not specific
- consider legal advice to follow legislation
- understand the need to draft a new tender process (Gabor)
- apply arm length priciple (Paolo)
- give input to [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm] about our situation (Cor)
- then get feedback/proposal from [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm]
- unwind the solution (Florian)
- legal is not specific to TDF
- must match reality
- be aware of TDF statutes
- unseen going so much tenders to board members
- not saying TDF is specific legally (Cor)
- what process to do which fits TDF specific situation
- echoing Cor (Thorsten)
- different from eg public construction tendering
- avoid generating probs in other areas
- TDF setup quite unique
- devs carrying the overwhelming load
- spend money to improve LO product/project
- risk of stalling development when money does not go to ecosystem
- no one wants to kick out ecosystem partners (Emiliano)
- being clearly stated what not will work the same way then in the past
- have to follow the rules (Paolo)
- refrain from acting when personal interest
- beyond the initial setup of TDF we can be creative (Thorsten)
- can be creative but following the law (Paolo)
- nudge to grow ecosystem (Cor)
- is a challenge
- extremely important to do it
- ranking needs technologic knowledge
- laws have been created in the past (Laszlo)
- MS monopoly in the market
- it’s all about trust (Gabriele)
- [REDACTED: three lines of sensitive legal information]
- only a few and easy steps to take
- need decision today
- need immediate solution (Gabor)
- how to get technological knowledge in the ESC (Cor)
- how perhaps update the ESC process (Thorsten)
- maybe put ranking on public(?) discussion (Cor)
- drawing a roadmap what the market needs (Marina)
- new proposals w. some improvements will work out (Gustavo)
Question to [REDACTED: name of lawyer or firm]:
In case we don’t reach a quorum for the budget due to too many conflicted board members, can they exceptionally vote for the full budget?
(Extension of answer provided the 11/04/2022?)
12:16 lunch break till 13:25
1200-1300: lunch break (no catering, food options are available outside)
1300-1500
-
Budget 2023
- possibly re-convene Tuesday morning
-
fine with a proposal from ESC about a feasible procedure(Emiliano)
- by respecting regulation needs
-
discussing/working/refining on tendering-process.ods (all)
15:09 coffee break till 15:25
-
VAT declaration 2021
- [REDACTED: four lines of sensitve legal information]
-
two/three HR topics
- [REDACTED: five lines of sensitive HR information]
MC members leave at 17:10
1500-1600
-
Team-ED-Staff relations - follow up Milan meeting
-
17:28
-
general policiy to cover (Cor)
- find a setup working for all people
-
things reported (Emiliano)
- [REDACTED: four lines of sensitive HR information]
17:39 Florian/Stephan leaving the meeting, then joining at 18:09
topic to be continued tomorrow Feb 7 at 09:00…
18:15 meeting adjourned for today