Procedure Of TDF Board Elections

Board Discuss
#1

Hello,

the elections for the next TDF Board of Directors has been started one
and a half week ago. The decision on the list of members that have a
vote in this election has been done by the membership committee in its
current composition. The announcement of the elections was done by the
current chair of the membership committee.

I took not that he nominates himself for the upcoming elections yet,
that he and the MC has to run and oversee.

First: I have no personal issue with him or other members or supporters
of LibreOffice!

Second: I'm not used to a procedure in elections where a candidate is
also the one or part of the group that run and/or oversee the elections
(and/or the entitlement to vote) and I've taken part in elections of
different organizations in the past (smaller and bigger organizations).
And in my opinion a process with a clear separation between 'election
committee' and candidates would be in the best interest of TDF and was
also the perception of the TDF founder (Freies Office Deutschland e.V.).
If the founder would have had another perception, the current regulation
with the MC running the elections for the board and the board running
the elections for the MC wouldn't make that much sense.

Third: I already shared this view with all involved people internal
during the last weeks. My take on this didn't change during the last two
years.

Fourth: I'm also no fan of stepping down during the period of duty to
get the position inside another body.

Kind regards,
Andreas

#2

Hi Andreas, all,

the elections for the next TDF Board of Directors has been started one
and a half week ago. The decision on the list of members that have a
vote in this election has been done by the membership committee in its
current composition. The announcement of the elections was done by the
current chair of the membership committee.

That was his job to do until now.
I asked Cor to make his candidacy as early as possible so that the MC has the ability to react. Cor makes this in a fine way (for me) as he didn't wait too long.

I took not that he nominates himself for the upcoming elections yet,
that he and the MC has to run and oversee.

As he steps down from chair now he won't run or oversee the election.
We have an exeptional MC-meeting about BoD-election tommorow.
And the MC has to vote for a new chair.

Second: I'm not used to a procedure in elections where a candidate is
also the one or part of the group that run and/or oversee the elections
(and/or the entitlement to vote) and I've taken part in elections of
different organizations in the past (smaller and bigger organizations).

It is the same as if the BoD has to vote about some tenders for one affiliated companies. The part is out of voting, overseeing it or something like that.

And in my opinion a process with a clear separation between 'election
committee' and candidates would be in the best interest of TDF and was
also the perception of the TDF founder (Freies Office Deutschland e.V.).
If the founder would have had another perception, the current regulation
with the MC running the elections for the board and the board running
the elections for the MC wouldn't make that much sense.

See the statutes.

Third: I already shared this view with all involved people internal
during the last weeks. My take on this didn't change during the last two
years.

Fourth: I'm also no fan of stepping down during the period of duty to
get the position inside another body.

That is until now the only way to demonstrate to be not involved in election.

#3

Hi Klaus-Jürgen, all,

Hi Andreas, all,

the elections for the next TDF Board of Directors has been started one
and a half week ago. The decision on the list of members that have a
vote in this election has been done by the membership committee in its
current composition. The announcement of the elections was done by the
current chair of the membership committee.

That was his job to do until now.

seemed we share not the same view here. I think everyone who consider to
candidate should step down before she/he was involved in any procedure
(also preparing procedure) of the election.

I asked Cor to make his candidacy as early as possible so that the MC
has the ability to react. Cor makes this in a fine way (for me) as he
didn't wait too long.

See above. We didn't share the same view on the best process here.

I took not that he nominates himself for the upcoming elections yet,
that he and the MC has to run and oversee.

As he steps down from chair now he won't run or oversee the election.
We have an exeptional MC-meeting about BoD-election tommorow.
And the MC has to vote for a new chair.

I didn't share that only the step down from the chair is enough. I
explained that already two years ago in another case.

Second: I'm not used to a procedure in elections where a candidate is
also the one or part of the group that run and/or oversee the elections
(and/or the entitlement to vote) and I've taken part in elections of
different organizations in the past (smaller and bigger organizations).

It is the same as if the BoD has to vote about some tenders for one
affiliated companies. The part is out of voting, overseeing it or
something like that.

I wouldn't go to further here. This are two different things, but to add
there is always the risk to get no vote because of too much connected
members of the body.

And in my opinion a process with a clear separation between 'election
committee' and candidates would be in the best interest of TDF and was
also the perception of the TDF founder (Freies Office Deutschland e.V.).
If the founder would have had another perception, the current regulation
with the MC running the elections for the board and the board running
the elections for the MC wouldn't make that much sense.

See the statutes.

Didn't get your message here.

Third: I already shared this view with all involved people internal
during the last weeks. My take on this didn't change during the last two
years.

Fourth: I'm also no fan of stepping down during the period of duty to
get the position inside another body.

That is until now the only way to demonstrate to be not involved in
election.

I think we talk about different things here. I tried to explain that in
my opinion someone who was elected for two years and didn't explain his
electors in front of his election that he wouldn't serve for two years,
but only for one or a bit more years, creates an issue with his former
electors. He needs to explain, why he'll not serve the whole period and
/or if there is an emergency to apply for another body.

Kind regards,
Andreas

#4

Hi Andreas,

The announcement of the elections was done by the
current chair of the membership committee.

  Of course, I'm interested in an ideal process - but I'm more interested
in a good outcome here.

  Is there anything in that announcement that particularly worries you
and/or that shows any sort of bias or somesuch ? I imagine that this is
substantially a boiler-plate mail - presumably re-used from the last one
that we sent out two years ago - it doesn't end: "Vote for Cor!" I am
assuming (not that I read it carefully :wink:

  ie. this is a pure theoretical process purity issue, not any real
concern ?

I asked Cor to make his candidacy as early as possible so that the MC
has the ability to react. Cor makes this in a fine way (for me) as he
didn't wait too long.

  Good =) so - we are transparent; I guess I'd leave the rest for the
electorate - assuming that Cor is indeed recused from further any MC
role until after the elections are concluded.

I think we talk about different things here. I tried to explain that in
my opinion someone who was elected for two years and didn't explain his
electors in front of his election that he wouldn't serve for two years,
but only for one or a bit more years,

  It is always an option I think for MC members; traditionally it has
been a good place to serve, and get to know how TDF works to move on to
the board from. IIRC several people did that. It is clear that when you
elect someone, they may resign from post for all manner of reasons - I
can't think of a better reason than coming to serve on the board.

  Having said that - in general, it is clearly better for most of the MC
to serve a full term so we have continuity in the MC. FWIW - I was
rather in favor of 1 year terms for both BoD & MC in the 1st instance
which would make this rather less of a problem (IMHO).

He needs to explain, why he'll not serve the whole period and
/or if there is an emergency to apply for another body.

  I imagine Cor's candidacy statement will explain that sort of thing. It
seems pretty clear to me that if the electorate share your lack of
happiness with that, they have a free and anonymous vote to express that
with - which will (I assume) result in Cor staying in the MC.
Traditionally I'm not so sure that they've minded.

  Regards,

    Michael.

#5

Hi Michael, Andreas, *

letting the rest of the discussion stand for the moment - this much:

Michael Meeks wrote:

  Having said that - in general, it is clearly better for most of the MC
to serve a full term so we have continuity in the MC. FWIW - I was
rather in favor of 1 year terms for both BoD & MC in the 1st instance
which would make this rather less of a problem (IMHO).

There's a technical problem here, in that board and MC run each
other's election - so you cannot have them elected both at the same
time I guess. Which in turn means there's always the issue of people
wanting to stand for the other body, to not be able to serve their
full term - regardless of term lengths.

I don't personally consider people from the MC standing for the board
to be a large issue - if this is not becoming a habit. Since there's a
hard problem for TDF, at the very least, should the size of the MC
shrink below the required number of officers (which is 3, as per
https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf §12, 3).

Beyond that, I agree with what you say Michael. Having significant
brain drain from the MC might affect how well we can attract new
members, and also perhaps how much time and energy we invest in
reviewing applications.

All the best,

-- Thorsten

#6

Hi Thorsten, Michael, all,

Hi Michael, Andreas, *

letting the rest of the discussion stand for the moment - this much:

Michael Meeks wrote:

  Having said that - in general, it is clearly better for most of the MC
to serve a full term so we have continuity in the MC. FWIW - I was
rather in favor of 1 year terms for both BoD & MC in the 1st instance
which would make this rather less of a problem (IMHO).

There's a technical problem here, in that board and MC run each
other's election - so you cannot have them elected both at the same
time I guess. Which in turn means there's always the issue of people
wanting to stand for the other body, to not be able to serve their
full term - regardless of term lengths.

maybe it would have helped a bit, if the election period of the MC ends
in the middle of the election period of the board.

I don't personally consider people from the MC standing for the board
to be a large issue - if this is not becoming a habit. Since there's a
hard problem for TDF, at the very least, should the size of the MC
shrink below the required number of officers (which is 3, as per
https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf §12, 3).

The number of remaining active members of the MC is one issue. The other
one is the role of the MC in connection to the board (and the other way
around). The tasks (and power) of the MC are written in § 12 I of the
statutes. The statutes foresee that the MC act as independent as
possible from the board (and the other way around too). Thus the people
acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of witness because of a or
economic dependence to a member of the the other body.

And a personal view at the end: I think it would be too bad to have a
longer break before one get elected for another body.

Kind regards,
Andreas

#7

Hi Andreas, all,

The number of remaining active members of the MC is one issue. The other
one is the role of the MC in connection to the board (and the other way
around). The tasks (and power) of the MC are written in § 12 I of the
statutes. The statutes foresee that the MC act as independent as
possible from the board (and the other way around too). Thus the people
acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of witness because of a or
economic dependence to a member of the the other body.

There is indeed always the situation that people have contact with each
other, either for work in TDF, business, because of friendship, or
avoiding because of (ancient) conflict. These may influence how one acts
in the role and tasks in any body - luckily we're not machines. Because
the board and MC have a multiple members, and we encourage each other to
communicate clear and open, I'm always starting from the optimistic
side: that the outcome of the processes will be fair and balanced.

On the other hand: looking out for ways to improve our process/rules is
always good. So thanks a lot for sharing your concerns here and the
discussion - of course the others too. I expect that, maybe with e.g.
larger membership, these topics will be looked at for sure.

For now: in the coming days you may expect information, more probably
than usual, from the MC how the current elections will be run in the
most transparent and fair way.

Regards,
Cor

#8

Hi Cor, all,

Hi Andreas, all,

The number of remaining active members of the MC is one issue. The other
one is the role of the MC in connection to the board (and the other way
around). The tasks (and power) of the MC are written in § 12 I of the
statutes. The statutes foresee that the MC act as independent as
possible from the board (and the other way around too). Thus the people
acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of witness because of a or
economic dependence to a member of the the other body.

There is indeed always the situation that people have contact with each
other, either for work in TDF, business, because of friendship, or
avoiding because of (ancient) conflict. These may influence how one acts

that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close personal
or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.

Kind regards,
Andreas

#9

Hi Andreas,

that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close personal
or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.

In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're friendly
with :wink:
So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to prevent
personal relations being the stronger argument than rational considerations.

Ciao,
Cor

#10

Hi Cor, all,

Hi Andreas,

that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close personal
or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.

In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're friendly
with :wink:
So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to prevent
personal relations being the stronger argument than rational considerations.

I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other (that's also a
rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an
organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good behavior
and transparent administration/organization.

Kind regards,
Andreas

#11

Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal?

S.

#12

Hi Simon, Cor, all,

    Hi Cor, all,

    > Hi Andreas,
    >
    >
    >> that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very close personal
    >> or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.
    >
    > In business, one often makes the most deals with people you're friendly
    > with :wink:
    > So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules to prevent
    > personal relations being the stronger argument than rational considerations.
    >

    I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other (that's also a
    rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an
    organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good behavior
    and transparent administration/organization.

Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal?

yes, as I already mentioned and quoted here:

"Thus the people acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of
witness because of a or economic dependence to a member of the the other
body."

And another recommendation that I think would be worth to follow:

"I think it would be too bad to have a longer break before one get
elected for another body."

I don't think that a good organization/community need to put this into
rules/statutes, but should have it in their DNA.

Kind regards,
Andreas

#13

Hi Andreas,

yes, as I already mentioned and quoted here:

"Thus the people acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of
witness because of a or economic dependence to a member of the the other
body."

And another recommendation that I think would be worth to follow:

"I think it would be too bad to have a longer break before one get
elected for another body."

Though I think I do not fully understand (technically) what you suggest.
it reads as: we must be really fair (and transparent). Especially
because of:

I don't think that a good organization/community need to put this into
rules/statutes, but should have it in their DNA.

If you think about possibilities to help with that, you're really
welcome to join/oversee the procedures from the MC in the current
elections, which is at least one side of that.

regards,
Cor

#14

I’m sorry, I don’t know what this means. Are you requesting disqualification of a candidate?

But that’s not an actionable proposal. What should we do?

S.

#15

Hi Cor, all,

Hi Andreas,

I don't think that a good organization/community need to put this into
rules/statutes, but should have it in their DNA.

If you think about possibilities to help with that, you're really
welcome to join/oversee the procedures from the MC in the current
elections, which is at least one side of that.

it's not the best idea to ask a board deputy)( member to oversee the
elections of the board, is it?

And it was not my suggestion to do such things. My recommendation (and
this for the candidacy for both bodies) states that is not the best idea
to try to jump over the fence, because one of them has to have an eye on
the work of the other. But everyone has to think about this situation
himself and decide on himself.

Personal note: I myself would feel very comfortable if I would candidate
for the MC half a year after I left the BoD.

And to illustrate my personal view a bit more: We had already regional
elections and the old government was voted down. A lot of them stayed in
the parliament, but they will not be member of parliamentary
commissions, that debate about topics of their former position (it's no
written rule, but an agreement and everyone knows what to do).

Kind regards,
Andreas

#16

Hi Simon, Cor, all,

    Hi Simon, Cor, all,

    >
    >
    >
    >     Hi Cor, all,
    >
    >     > Hi Andreas,
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >> that's not the topic, I wrote about. I wrote about very
    close personal
    >     >> or economic connections, not the usual friendship etc.
    >     >
    >     > In business, one often makes the most deals with people
    you're friendly
    >     > with :wink:
    >     > So let's try to all be friends and use the appropriate rules
    to prevent
    >     > personal relations being the stronger argument than rational
    considerations.
    >     >
    >
    >     I'm not talking about not being friendly with each other
    (that's also a
    >     rule written in the statutes), but about the fact that TDF is an
    >     organization with rules and a lot of credit based also on good
    behavior
    >     and transparent administration/organization.
    >
    >
    > Andreas, do you have a specific request or proposal?
    >

    yes, as I already mentioned and quoted here:

    "Thus the people acting on both bodies shouldn't have immunity of
    witness because of a or economic dependence to a member of the the other
    body."

I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. Are you requesting
disqualification of a candidate?

no, because if I don't miss anything, there is only one candidate yet.

Cheers,
Andreas

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.