I, Franklin Weng, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in
the order set forth below:
1. Nicolas Christener
2. Paolo Vecchi
Hi,
I, Franklin Weng, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in
the order set forth below:1. Nicolas Christener
2. Paolo Vecchi
if I remember correctly Nicolas is partner of Collabora. Thus there
might be three person with the same affiliation in the board call, if
he'll represent you. This wouldn't be in accordance with the statutes.
Kind regards,
Andreas
Hi Andreas,
I, Franklin Weng, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in
the order set forth below:1. Nicolas Christener
2. Paolo Vecchiif I remember correctly Nicolas is partner of Collabora. Thus there
might be three person with the same affiliation in the board call, if
he'll represent you. This wouldn't be in accordance with the statutes.
As Franklin is also a partner, that seems rather moot.
Beyond that - I think, once again, your interpretation of affiliation
is not one that stands up to scrutiny.
It is also somewhat offensive to insinuate that Collabora's partners
are not free agents who can and do act in the best interests of the
community they were elected to represent.
Regards,
Michael.
Hi Michael,
Hi Andreas,
I, Franklin Weng, elected member of the Board of Directors of The
Document Foundation, hereby and until further notice, nominate the
following deputies to represent me during board calls and meetings, in
the order set forth below:1. Nicolas Christener
2. Paolo Vecchiif I remember correctly Nicolas is partner of Collabora. Thus there
might be three person with the same affiliation in the board call, if
he'll represent you. This wouldn't be in accordance with the statutes.As Franklin is also a partner, that seems rather moot.
it's your view on the statutes and the reasons for the rule about
affiliation. I don't share that.
Beyond that - I think, once again, your interpretation of affiliation
is not one that stands up to scrutiny.It is also somewhat offensive to insinuate that Collabora's partners
are not free agents who can and do act in the best interests of the
community they were elected to represent.
From the statutes, It really doesn't matter, what they are doing,
thinking etc. The rule about affiliation tries to prevent TDF from
_possible_ CoI and predominance.
I want to underline that I don't think the way you try to impute to me.
I learned a lot from your reply and its tone.
Kind regards,
Andreas
Hello Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
it's your view on the statutes and the reasons for the rule about
affiliation. I don't share that.
independent of the reading of the statutes - what Franklin sent is just the representation statement. That per se does not trigger this conflict of interest rule.
Amongst a variety of other things, it depends on the actual meeting composition and the topics voted or discussed, so I propose to have that discussion when an actual representation takes place.
If there are concerns on the wording of the statement, happy to talk on the phone with you anytime.
Florian
Hello Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
it's your view on the statutes and the reasons for the rule about
affiliation. I don't share that.
independent of the reading of the statutes - what Franklin sent is just the representation statement. That per se does not trigger this conflict of interest rule.
Amongst a variety of other things, it depends on the actual meeting composition and the topics voted or discussed, so I propose to have that discussion when an actual representation takes place.
If there are concerns on the wording of the statement, happy to talk on the phone with you anytime.
Florian
Hello,
Hello Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
it's your view on the statutes and the reasons for the rule about
affiliation. I don't share that.independent of the reading of the statutes - what Franklin sent is
just the representation statement. That per se does not trigger this
conflict of interest rule.Amongst a variety of other things, it depends on the actual meeting
composition and the topics voted or discussed, so I propose to have
that discussion when an actual representation takes place.If there are concerns on the wording of the statement, happy to talk
on the phone with you anytime.
I already learned from this thread, that there are already three board
members with the same affiliation. The third one was disclosed in this
thread. There were no information about this affiliation in this
message:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04346.html
or in a follow up on this list.
Regards,
Andreas
Hello Andreas,
Andreas Mantke wrote:
I already learned from this thread, that there are already three board
members with the same affiliation. The third one was disclosed in this
thread. There were no information about this affiliation in this
message:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/msg04346.htmlor in a follow up on this list.
I will try to call you this week, so we can talk about your concerns directly on the phone. We haven't chatted in a while, so this is a good opportunity, I think. 
Florian