Ten days have passed since the LibreOffice conference closed with the Q&A session, and I keep coming back to one of the last allegations, i.e. the BoD rejected the election of a candidate in order to “protect” itself from his actions as a representative of an opposing faction.
At the time, I responded in the most obvious way, which is to say that I reject the very concept of factions, because a free and open source software project as important as ours, but as small as it is compared to the average size of the companies it faces, has no choice but to collaborate at all levels in order to be successful, yesterday, today and in the future.
Throughout the week, however, I kept wondering if the person who made that statement had thought through the implications of it, and the consequences of the behavior of the BoD and MC members if the factions existed and their members behaved accordingly.
Admittedly, what happened within the BoD from 2020 to 2022 and from 2022 to 2024 suggests the existence of two factions, but I do not think it is possible to make a positive judgment on the two BoDs in the light of the results of the 2023 audit on the 2022 activities, which will most likely not be very different from the results of the 2024 audit on the 2023 activities.
The two BoDs made several mistakes, either individually or collectively, first of all the lack of communication to the outside world (in fact, even if it was not possible to communicate all the details, it was certainly possible to summarize them), followed by the inability to create a favorable climate for a discussion aimed at reaching a compromise, and the excessive and not always justified use of legal and other advisors. Mistakes which, in my personal opinion, were never made to the benefit of The Document Foundation.
At this stage, it is completely pointless to point the finger at one or other member of the two BoDs, as this would be a sterile and pointless exercise for the project. Personally, I have very definite opinions about the members of the two Boards, which I do not feel it appropriate to share in order to avoid influencing the opinions of TDF members in any way. As far as I am concerned, I have never sympathized with one or the other and have always tried to form my own opinion.
I would also like TDF members to try to make up their own minds about who applies for the BoD or MC on the basis of their ability to make a positive contribution to either body (for the benefit of The Document Foundation and not for their own personal or corporate position, whatever that may be) and not on the basis of the number or quality of their contributions. Unfortunately, reality tells us that it is possible to be an excellent contributor and a lousy manager, and vice versa.
Frankly, at the moment it seems to me that the assessment is not based on this kind of analysis, but on other factors, and this has caused - at least in part - the problems that the current BoD has to solve with enormous difficulties.
As far as I am concerned, I feel that the decision of the Board, to which some members have expressed their disagreement, has been validated - precisely with regard to the aspect of the ability to contribute in a positive way - by the behavior of a person who first put things into my mouth that I had never said (moreover, in the knowledge that I had said exactly the opposite in front of at least 50 people), and then had the audacity to call me a liar by unacceptably and offensively altering statements that I had made elsewhere, in another context, and in an obviously ironic manner, in order to explain one of the most popular techniques among public speaking professionals, namely storytelling.
Since all this has created an irreparable rift on an individual level, which obviously risks influencing my judgment, I will henceforth abstain from both discussions and decisions which, in my unquestionable judgment, concern the “faction” supporting the individual author of the two articles, which obviously exists, at least in the minds of those who support his election, despite the obvious problems it creates for The Document Foundation. This, to protect my neutral position, above the parties.