Hi,
I have two first questions to the candidates:
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
Regards,
Andreas
Hi Andreas
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
Yes, I did. mostly because I try to help in the discussion of a business entity.
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
This seems only of interest in case a member of the BoD wants to get a member of the MC to prevent or influence a pending lawsuit against himself.
It is surely desirable to have prevented such a possibility by our statues - but nothing is perfect. And some kind of self-commitment will not prevent such a case.
On the other hand the time schedule of the board and mc elections is a bit cumbersome for such an operation.
Hi Andreas,
Hi,
I have two first questions to the candidates:
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
Yes, I was regularly in the calls (well as long as my work allowed it)
as you can read in the meeting minutes and also asked some critical
questions. 
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
We have seen in the past many people stepping down in the MC to get part
of the next BoD. As you're German: that has some "Geschmäckle" (it is
shady).
My personal opinion is that you should not step down to get into another
body. You got voted in and thus you might simply wait and do not rerun
for the same body. A longer "cooling down" period (say 3 years) is
unnecessary in my opinion.
As Uwe already pointed out: regarding some law suit: this seem very
hypothetically although the statutes were well balanced written for good
reasons and the statutes are not easily changeable by German law.
Regards,
Andreas
Best regards,
Dennis Roczek
Hi Andreas!
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 3:19 AM Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi,
I have two first questions to the candidates:
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
No, attending the BoD meeting isn’t usual for me. In general because of the time zone difference and because my collaborative time is almost all occupied in working with the mcm-script (I mean handle applications and renewals to prepare them for voting by all MC members).
But I read the minutes and, when I have some questions, I ask other MC members or directly a BoD member.
b) What is your personal take on a ‘cooling down’ periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
Interesting question. It could be in our statutes but, on the other hand, jumping from one body to another isn’t automatic. We have mature and clear elections in the middle. It gives to the members enough time to ask and discuss the proposals and profiles of the candidates. So, as the members have the final word, I’m ok with our current process.
Regards,
Gustavo.
Regards,
Andreas
–
a) No, but I read the minutes when I am free.
b) For me, I don’t think we need cooling down time for this, but if most of our members consider that we need it, I will not be against it.
Regards,
Jeff Huang
Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> 於 2020年8月28日 週五 下午2:19寫道：
Hi,
I have two first questions to the candidates:
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
I attended to ask questions with others about TDC as I struggled with the slide deck/proposal documents. It was made clear during that call that non-board personnel were pesky to board members (exemplified on the mailing list later [1]) so I stopped engaging. It is my hope that the board can approach conflict with a more patient and empathetic way - we mortals care about the project, too.
(N.B. This is not to single out one individual or to cast shade upon all of the board as a whole. Some - notably mmeeks - engaged in a very thoughtful, patient manner.)
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
Good question!
I share Dennis' view - leaving an appointed post to go up the ladder seems unhelpful. A post should enjoy the talents of the person occupying it until commitment cessation. If the MC exists merely as a stepping stone to political gain in the BoD then a more fundamental problem needs examination.
[1] Message-id: <a808307a-1f15-4a69-e848-0b732aa0554b@documentfoundation.org>
Hi Uwe, all,
Hi Andreas
(...)
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?This seems only of interest in case a member of the BoD wants to get a member of the MC to prevent or influence a pending lawsuit against himself.
It is surely desirable to have prevented such a possibility by our statues - but nothing is perfect. And some kind of self-commitment will not prevent such a case.
On the other hand the time schedule of the board and mc elections is a bit cumbersome for such an operation.
Maybe a look into the second sentence of § 12 is also of interest here.
The MC initiate and supervise the board elections.
a) Could lead to a conflict of interest?
b) Is not showing solidarity (if MC membership is canceled or
suspended), because more work on less shoulder?
Regards,
Andreas
Hi,
Hello Andreas,
I have two first questions to the candidates:
first of all, let me say thanks for dedicating your time to the Project and for asking these questions.
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
After the end of my term as board member (February 19th 2020) I had the chance to join the public part of the board calls only two times. Unfortunately the call was conflicting with other calls related to my daily job. For staying updated on what is going on at TDF I'm reading the public minutes, the information shared on this list and on the internal member list.
If I'll be elected I'll adjust my calendar trying to keep the board call slot available for having the chance to directly attend the public part of the board calls.
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
Our statutes don't require a "cooling period" before joining one of the governing bodies.
I agree with Dennis that an elected member of the MC should remain in charge until the end of the term, avoiding to step-down after having the confirmation of being elected in the Board of Directors.
I can see in this "habit" several negative effects like:
a) the Board of Trustees elected that member for fulfilling the duties of the Membership Committee for a two years term;
b) leaving the MC role for jumping in the controlled body could lead to a conflict being that person the "controller" and than the "controlled";
c) leaving the Membership Committee for joining the other body will reduce the number of available MC members taking care of the important responsibility the MC has.
Please, let me know if this clarifies your questions.
Have a nice evening,
Marina
Hi,
I have two first questions to the candidates:
Thank you for asking and thus giving the opportunity to express our opinions.
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
I did, now and then, but my daily job doesn’t leave me so much spare time, particularly during the day, as I haven’t a fixed place / office to work, but most of the time I go all day round to my clients. And that’s why I’ve never ran for BoD.
b) What is your personal take on a ‘cooling down’ periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
The “diving” or jumping from MC to BoD is something I’ve never liked too much. In particular that led several times MC to run out of deputies, and for this reason I asked and obtained to have 4 of them in MC, which could look like a big number, compared to the number of full members (5), but facts demonstrated that I was right.
I perceived this behaviour in the past as a kind of betrayal against the members who voted to have a member in charge for that role for the whole 2 years of a term, but lately I understood that at the end MC is also a way to get more in contact with TDF’s core government and to learn how things work in it, so it’s almost natural to serve in MC and then go to BoD. Obviously it would be much better to complete a term and then wait for next BoD elections, giving also the opportunity to “cool down”, lowering the risk of an uncomfortable situation where the “controllers” (MC) may have to weigh and decide about or against a person who used to be among them.
Moreover a cool down period helps to have a better objective and distant perspective on TDF, but still having a deeper experience to understand and judge, from my point of view. On the other hand everyone is free to resign whenever they want from MC.
Let’s say that this is an interesting point that could be put on a To Do List to be discussed by the BoD as part of a possible bylaw, which could include some more points.
Gabriele Ponzo
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for your question.
a) regarding the mission of the MC (§ 12 of the statutes) have you
already participated in board calls during the last two years as
external (non-member)?
I participated in it about two times. I usually read the minutes later.
b) What is your personal take on a 'cooling down' periode between being
a member of leading bodies of the foundation, regarding the first
sentence in the statutes § 12?
In my opinion, there is no need to change the current rules, unless
MC has been suffering from a shortage of members for some time.
If the shortage of MC members due to resignation is a problem, I think
it is better to increase the capacity of MC.
Because resignations occur for a variety of reasons, not just for
running for elections in BoD.
Best regards,
Shinji
Hi all,
a short résumé:
a) there are 13 candidates for the MC elections and only 8 are
able/willing to answer two short questions.
Many thanks to all of this eight candidates to take your time and give
your personal view!
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question to
the candidates!
That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.
Regards,
Andreas
This is something we have a bit of a problem of in the Arch Linux community as well when a community member applies to become a Trusted User (i.e. a packager in the [community] repository). Existing TUs vet the applicant's package quality and fitness. Sometimes barely any discussion comes during the two-week discussion period. I am guilty of letting this slide as well. We have not really solved the problem past the occasional reminder of our duties. I think this problem is more generally one of doing thankless, "minor" - yet important - work in volunteer communities.
I do not pretend to know how to solve this for everyone. Personally, I find that an occasional reminder of my duties in my occupied post keeps the easily-forgotton tasks somewhat near the front of my brain.
I would be happy to discuss general topics with all my friends, such as our opinions of TDF's strengths and weaknesses to encourage a healthy stir of the pot. But I encourage community members to ask questions or voice their opinion!
Voters possibly already know the candidates well enough that questions don't add any value to an already-formulated opinion.
Hi Andreas,
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question to
the candidates!That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.
Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to know
from each candidate:
What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
* many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.
+ how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
+ Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing
+ what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
* If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
you encouraged to apply for membership ?
* How many applications have you voted against ?
* Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
between membership and non-membership that encourages
a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
achieve full membership ?
* When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
should other MC members validate that ?
* To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
+ I'm interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.
Thanks for any answers =)
Michael.
Hi Andreas,
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question to
the candidates!That's something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I'd love to know
from each candidate:What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
* many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.+ how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
Don't need to be 'a lot'
+ Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#Contributing
What's the 'more marginal contributions' meaning?
+ what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
* If you've stood before, approximately how many people have
you encouraged to apply for membership ?* How many applications have you voted against ?
* Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
between membership and non-membership that encourages
a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
achieve full membership ?* When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
decide on a person's contribution; what is best practice for
MC members vouching for their friends' contributions, and how
should other MC members validate that ?* To what degree should the MC's decisions & discussion
be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?
Any relation to MC Open Letter?
* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
+ I'm interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.
'Too popular'? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?
I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your nomination?
S.
First of all, it is a public list.
On the other hand, not being a candidate disqualifies me from asking questions?
Did you mean that Daniel has no rights to speak out his question? If so, In what rules say only candidates can reply questions to MC candidates?
If no, then why did you ask such a question?
F
Simon Phipps 於 2020/9/4 下午9:47 寫道:
I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your nomination?
S.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <drodriguez@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
Hi Andreas,
On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question
to
the candidates!That’s something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I’d love to
know
from each candidate:What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
- many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.
- how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
Don’t need to be ‘a lot’
- Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#ContributingWhat’s the ‘more marginal contributions’ meaning?
- what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
If you’ve stood before, approximately how many people have
you encouraged to apply for membership ?How many applications have you voted against ?
Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
between membership and non-membership that encourages
a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
achieve full membership ?When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
decide on a person’s contribution; what is best practice for
MC members vouching for their friends’ contributions, and how
should other MC members validate that ?To what degree should the MC’s decisions & discussion
be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?Any relation to MC Open Letter?
- How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
- I’m interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.‘Too popular’? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?
–
DAR
Hi Franklin.
Daniel appeared to be responding negatively to Michael’s question rather than asking any of his own. I see no reason why Board members need to argue between themselves on this thread when you’ve plenty of scope for that on your secret lists.
Best regards,
Simon
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:09 PM Franklin Weng <franklin@slat.org> wrote:
Did you mean that Daniel has no rights to speak out his question? If so, In what rules say only candidates can reply questions to MC candidates?
If no, then why did you ask such a question?
F
Simon Phipps 於 2020/9/4 下午9:47 寫道:
I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your nomination?
S.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <drodriguez@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
Hi Andreas,
On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question
to
the candidates!That’s something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I’d love to
know
from each candidate:What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
- many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.
- how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
Don’t need to be ‘a lot’
- Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#ContributingWhat’s the ‘more marginal contributions’ meaning?
- what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
If you’ve stood before, approximately how many people have
you encouraged to apply for membership ?How many applications have you voted against ?
Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
between membership and non-membership that encourages
a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
achieve full membership ?When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
decide on a person’s contribution; what is best practice for
MC members vouching for their friends’ contributions, and how
should other MC members validate that ?To what degree should the MC’s decisions & discussion
be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?Any relation to MC Open Letter?
- How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
- I’m interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.‘Too popular’? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?
–
DAR-- Franklin Weng 中華民國軟體自由協會常務理事 文件基金會（LibreOffice 法人代表）認證 LibreOffice 導入專家、訓練專家 文件基金會（LibreOffice 法人代表）董事會副主席、認證委員會委員
–
Maybe, but you still don’t answer my question. In what rules forbid Daniel to do this?
BTW, If I would reply Michael’s question mail I would be negative too, because I don’t like his way to ask such questions, just like I don’t like the way you ask Daniel either.
F.
Simon Phipps 於 2020/9/4 下午10:12 寫道:
Hi Franklin.
Daniel appeared to be responding negatively to Michael’s question rather than asking any of his own. I see no reason why Board members need to argue between themselves on this thread when you’ve plenty of scope for that on your secret lists.
Best regards,
Simon
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 3:09 PM Franklin Weng <franklin@slat.org> wrote:
Did you mean that Daniel has no rights to speak out his question? If so, In what rules say only candidates can reply questions to MC candidates?
If no, then why did you ask such a question?
F
Simon Phipps 於 2020/9/4 下午9:47 寫道:
I was not aware you were a candidate, Daniel. Did I miss your nomination?
S.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:29 PM Daniel Armando Rodriguez <drodriguez@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
El 2020-09-04 08:17, Michael Meeks escribió:
Hi Andreas,
On 03/09/2020 19:59, Andreas Mantke wrote:
b) TDF currently has 221 members and none of them asked any question
to
the candidates!That’s something to think long and hard about. What does this mean to
the democratic culture of the foundation. It was created to get the
members / contributors a voice and a say.Fair enough =) good point - here are a few questions I came up with.
Please note - it is trivial to ask more questions in a few minutes than
can be answered in a lifetime - but here are a few things I’d love to
know
from each candidate:What is the right list for that ? board-discuss I hope.
- many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.
- how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
Don’t need to be ‘a lot’
- Do you think we expand the membership by accpting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#ContributingWhat’s the ‘more marginal contributions’ meaning?
- what effect do you expect that to have on the project ?
If you’ve stood before, approximately how many people have
you encouraged to apply for membership ?How many applications have you voted against ?
Do you believe we should have a half-way house / badge
between membership and non-membership that encourages
a person, and gives the a path via more contribution to
achieve full membership ?When there are no concrete metrics (such as translated strings,
code commits, wiki changes, ask comments, etc.) available to
decide on a person’s contribution; what is best practice for
MC members vouching for their friends’ contributions, and how
should other MC members validate that ?To what degree should the MC’s decisions & discussion
be transparent (ie. publicly available) ?Any relation to MC Open Letter?
- How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
- I’m interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.‘Too popular’? What about that tiny little issue callled affiliation?
–
DAR-- Franklin Weng 中華民國軟體自由協會常務理事 文件基金會（LibreOffice 法人代表）認證 LibreOffice 導入專家、訓練專家 文件基金會（LibreOffice 法人代表）董事會副主席、認證委員會委員–
Simon Phipps
Office: +1 (415) 683-7660 or +44 (238) 098 7027
Signal/Mobile: +44 774 776 2816
Hi Daniel,
* many MC members say they want to expand the membership.
Given that LibreOffice is rather static in terms of its
number of those involved in development: coding, UX,
translation, documentation etc.+ how do you plan to gain lots of new contributors ?
...
+ Do you think we expand the membership by accepting
more marginal contributions for membership cf.
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Membership_Role#ContributingWhat's the 'more marginal contributions' meaning?
Ah - perhaps I should be more clear:
+ "Do you think we should expand the membership by
accepting much smaller contributions for membership"
Sorry for that. The essence of the question is simple - if you
want to grow the membership there are at least these two approaches:
+ encourage more people to contribute more to meet
the criteria
or
+ lower the criteria for membership
Hence my question - in each case - I'd love more detail on people's
suggested approach.
* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?
+ I'm interested in where we have the situation that
being too popular can stop you being able to
engage at all as a deputy - as we saw with
Miklos/Jona in the last MC election, and Kendy
in the last Board election.'Too popular'? What about that tiny little issue called affiliation?
Sure, so do you have a question about that ? either way I'm curious
about MC member's views of an electoral system whereby (given the
current CoI rules) discouraging people from voting for you is a good
tactic to get elected and/or that if/as/when people are bumped by
these rules that it's not possible to appoint the next most popular
person in the ranking etc.
I would hope that:
"* How do you believe we can improve the existing election
system - assuming the statutes can be tweaked ?"
Is a legitimate question for the MC candidates ?
ATB,
Michael.