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 2023-09-19 in-person joint meeting board, MC and team, 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.
1. staff policy
- public feedback mostly negative
- request to have more time due to audit, vacation and conference - not granted
- most active in the communication (Cor)
- input was asked
- useful and fair present draft to the team
- handle process flexibly
- with the workload will need more time
- communication issues on the table
- what was the task? (Guilhem)
- board is biased - like everybody else is
- intention from the start fair chance giving input (Cor)
- given to a firm
- what did you task the firm? (Guilhem)
- is ongoing (Cor)
- input given to them
- resolve from the first steps go into wider community
- seeking for transparency (Paolo)
- firm [REDACTED: name of lawyer or law firm]
- one director signed with this firm
- biased
- are lawyers, don’t understand community
- board carrying on regardless
- biggest problem sometimes staff feel attacked from the board (Shinji)
- However, this policy appears to be focused on increasing the power of the board
- need for protection
- public process and otherwise lot of discussion is not allowed in public (Stephan)
- learn now about law firm tasked (Florian)
- ambiguous idea to me (Hossein)
- scope and consequences are all open
- [REDACTED: two lines of sensitive statements]
- sit together all to discuss
- communication problems show issues
- can be solved by silencing but does not solve the underlying issue
- will escalate to next level
- either [REDACTED: sensitive legal statement] or go through a mediation
- what do you think what be the good outcome?
- [REDACTED: two lines of sensitive statements]
- possibility to give input in various manners (Cor)
- firm we are taking with has experience
- are helping the board
- have experience with people having double roles
- not mentioned to ‘silence’ staff
- main point is policy may worries staff but it is putting pressure on Management. Board should discuss with management and solve the problems (Hossein)
- wish from board since years for such a policy (Cor)
- look into history (Florian)
- TDC story
- staff asked questions
- resulted in bad things
- so called ‘meeting to discredit staff’ March 2022
- pushing against staff members asking questions with regards to the TDC story
- TDC discussion showed we made a mistake with communication with the staff (Cor)
- had not been handeled properly
- CoI and CoC can do already job (Christian)
- don’t see what could be the reason for a part ‘muzzling’ staff having perhaps more weight in the ‘public’ perception
- Florian give a lot of nuance (Guilhem)
- all go back to being biased pushing for that
- surprised because of communication issue 3 years before (Olivier)
- question absolute valid at the time
- team expressed dislike (Christian)
- voicing in public lead to getting ‘private’ calls
- did someone get such calls? (Cor)
- were called several times (Sophie)
- wasting 1 and a half hour (Heiko)
- nothing good to come out
- for staff, community, users
- will have discussion every year (Thorsten)
- would you like your work discussed publicly? (Cor)
- yes, I’ll stand (Heiko)
- massive lost of trust from staff to board (Uwe)
- shows underlying problems among people
- seems there is not much movement in there
- where is the beef?
- problem stands at least for 3 years
- board sunk in it’s own problems
- is about TDF living or dieing
- would like ask Gabor, Laszlo
- trying to handle lot of problems in the problem (Laszlo)
- feel my responsibility
- very hard dealing for the future of TDF
- seems things are not possible to be handled in a proper way
- staff protection part of it
- my doing here is listening
- am less convinced that we need policy right now (Gabor)
- really wished not to have such kind of policy (Gabriel)
- learned about issues between board and staff
- see such a policy to solve problems
- don’t know if policy will matrialize bit useful process
- don’t know why
- see whole picture (Stephan)
- especially [REDACTED: name of two board members] mostly always ‘in defense’
- going in direction to muzzle unpleasant voices
- is not the best way forward (Paolo)
- issued caused by the directors
- silencing unpleasant statements
- board dysfucntional
- only negative statements raised
- legal advise ignored
- in the end board pushes through
- don’t have proposition (Gabriel)
- sth new to me
- you are still voting (Guilhem)
- but stating needing more information
- voting is something strong
- is something approving
- seems you are not supporting
- have an opinion (Gabriel)
- voting was just to start the procedure
- many issues discussed are on pesonal level
- not pleased involving in this
- inheritated issues
- explaining the process of voting (Emiliano)
- normally information goes to the board
- discuss, build an opinion, then vote
- but actually only votes come to the board
- policy to address expectations from all sides
- core issue is trust
- shows that we need policy and this process (Cor)
- building trust is not easy
16:00 coffee break till 16:15
- summarizing the discussion ([REDACTED: name of external communication consultant])
- make it smaller instead increasing (Hossein)
- criticism about this policy (Paolo)
- stop evaluating with law firm(s)
- ask legal counsels
- have a look at best practices from other organizations
- board members should not be allowed to staff to shut up
- votes for staff protection were ignored
- voting this in would be good example wrt staff
- draft was not out from a clean start (Florian)
- worked on a paper given
- let look what other organizations did (Cor)
- good take with [REDACTED: name of lawyer or law firm]'s experience
- goal is first to go over all the issues
- then (re)build trust
- first discuss instead publishing draft and then discuss (Hossein)
- unbearable pressure
- staff protection has mentioned (Cor)
- analyzed legal advise
- found this firm based in Germany as TDF is
- should be named ‘team’ instead ‘staff’ policy (attribution unknown)
- are also peers
- lack of trust is huge, big
- start first with protection policy
- a part from lack of trust
- trust is not only between a few persons (attribution unknown)
- am on my way to leave
- replace personal trust by institutional trust (Uwe)
- to ensure trust inside TDF even when persons will not be available (any more)
- some meta comment (Thorsten)
- policy for everyone
- policies is a way of institutional proceedings
- can you enumerate things wrt staff? (Hossein)
- unsolved, festering problems (Thorsten)
- writing down expectations mutually
- process is open ended
- being staff in danger is not the case (Cor)
- forming a working group?
- board looking into it to have it effectively ongoing
- agreeing with Marina (Paolo)
- start with team protection and whistleblowing policy
- taking it straight forward from the lawyers
- appears conflict is escalating (Hossein)
- [REDACTED: four lines of legal statements]
- big lack of trusts from both sides (MichaelW)
- mediation was mentioned
- wondering how mediation and team policy can work together
- trust has to be regained from both sides (Guilhem)
- conversation on board discuss and elsewhere seemed very one-sided, more directed at how staff should behave, less about how board should
- is no equality in this case (Florian)
2. planned demotion of Emiliano
- why?
- question from the team about the reason (Florian)
- vote has not passed decision is deferred (Thorsten)
- big issue about trust (attribution unknown)
- team, community is not aware of
- chairman decided to replace deputy chair
- very problematic wrt to trust and transparency
- defering just means to do it asap
- surprised that it would be such easy to remove one from his position (Sophie)
- two directors leaved (Guilhem)
- is tragic for the project
- is about humilation
- in line to push out unpleasant voices (Stephan)
- initially worked well with Emiliano (Thorsten)
- explaining what was said in the last board meeting (cf. there)
- asking Emiliano (Sophie)
- felt the desparation from Emiliano too (Laszlo)
- can confirm what Thorsten described (Gabriel)
- consensus can only reached if it’s [REDACTED: name of board member] consensus (Stephan)
- how it will help the board to solve some questions? (Gustavo)
- carrying the load alone (Thorsten)
- try work-balance
- most of the problems are not visible
- came back to talk with Emiliano after 9 months
- people in the rooms instrumentalising things
- a lot of time has gone since 9 months (Guilhem)
- so, why now?
- not addressing the issue at the conference
- constantly postponing
- what I am hearing the vote will be done a bit later
- within failed communication there is at leat two
- need transparency here (Paolo)
- what Stephan says is right
- if not agreeing the outcome is ‘agree to disagree’
- speaking about feelings here (Emiliano)
- seeing a vote that should be hold for mediation
- starting the vote just when going to the plane
- issues at TDF are much bigger
- so I decided to participate
- situation became worse with every month
- tremendously donwwards since Nov22
- board trying to set up a team without Paolo
- asked to stop this immediately
- but it didn’t stop
- but being than ignored
- in fact excluded
- [REDACTED: sensitive personal information]
- was asked once to chair a meeting
- in the end the chair handled the session
- someone speaking about emails going behind the board’s back
- [REDACTED: sensitive legal statement]
- manging group should be aware of this
- being retaliated for this
- lawyers checked first the issue to demote me
- second part of email would be CoI
18:00 coffee break till 18:10
- thanking to Emiliano to stand and putting TDF first (Sophie)
- what about this law firm
- thank you to Emiliano to stay (Paolo)
- to the statement saying that Paolo and Emiliano doing sth behind the board’s back
- naturally having been ignored
- email from law firm coming up
- lawyer has been contacted from some of the board to gain advantage (Emiliano)
- happened several time
- [REDACTED: sensitive legal statement]
- big issues board members vote without understanding the issue (Paolo)
- have common goal (Laszlo)
- seeing the lot of work one stepping down is not good
- Laszlo would you be able to work on all that stuff (Sophie)
- maybe yes, maybe not (Laszlo)
- depending on the next days
- [REDACTED: name of board member] wanted manage all by himself (Emiliano)
- suggesting a rotation (Heiko)
- that’s the reason for it one stops from one moment to an other (Thorsten)
- don’t agree with any of the directors what they did the last 18 months (attribution unknown)
- task is to act in bringing forward TDF
- at last start working
- discussing is fair
- find a solution to bring forward TDF
- team and MC are part of that
- board should give direction
- team to run TDF
- e.g. marketing strategy
- was distillation of different opinion
- don’t need policies but work together
- make a step into maturity of the project
- (re)start working like we did in the past
- things happened in the board (attribution unknown)
- needed mediation
- work on that to overcome that
- same situation as in former times with [REDACTED: name of company]
- reason for distrust, try to look forward
- find setting with valid, trusted people
- safe for anything
- need to look at it
- issues on trust (Paolo)
- asking lawyers for opinions
- absolutly largest problem is two people go behind the back
- legal stuff to be done (Emiliano)
- law firm was contacted before the board was informed
- problem with non-profit status
- lawyer contacted to get a better position for board members and their companies
- law firm was asked how about CoI issues
- was never answered
3. interaction and communication, toxic work environment
- people are actively looking for new jobs, they send in CVs and apply for new jobs as we speak (attribution unknown)
- unhappiness because of bosses
- previous unresolved issues (LibOCon, FOSDEM) - keynote, discrediting in front of other staff members (“xyz controls everything”, “xyz talks too much with abc”)
- people not represent TDF at events anymore, can’t identify with it anymore
- working conditions
- payment for some not working out anymore
- side parameters are not good either
- bad payment, you hate your job’s environment, you see no sense → you leave
- mediation on board-staff relations
4. feeling is the board actually not solves anything
- some board members totally passive (attribution unknown)
5. Status of the audit
- more time needed (Florian)
- additional questions were asked
6. ongoing health issues
- [REDACTED: sensitive statement]
- people will not share details anymore
7. [REDACTED: sensitive HR topic]
- what the board thinks
- future plans. Is the position going to be published again?
- how to improve the work environment to prevent people from leaving
8. flagging and controlling communication/posts
9. (board’s) achievements in the current board term, especially since LibOCon Milan Sept2022
10. strategic goals, and community building (board, MC)
Meeting ends 16:02 UTC / 19:02 Bucharest time