I would like to reassure those who interpreted my message as an abandonment of the project. This is not the case.
I am merely acknowledging my impotence in the face of any reasonable attempt to resolve the problems, not only the more serious ones highlighted by the two audits - I would remind you that we are talking about the risk of losing our status as a charitable foundation, with all that this implies - but also the less serious ones relating to day-to-day management, such as the proposal for a group of BoD members in charge of human resources, without a CoI, which has been ignored twice.
I add, of course, the situation regarding the election of the Membership Committee, for which I confirm - in case anyone had any doubts - my decision, in which the rights of the TDF members were used to conceal a completely different objective, namely to control the majority of the Membership Committee, which would constitute the TDF members for the next Board elections. I am 70 years old and have been in top management positions since I was 28, so I have witnessed power struggles in companies and associations and I know all the strategies.
And because I am already aware of the objection to the previous paragraph, and because I try to maintain a consistent attitude and my independence of thought in all situations, I express my disagreement with the decision not to confirm the TDF member status of Thorsten Behrens and Gabriel Masei, while I agree with the decision not to confirm the TDF member status of Cor Nouws, because I still consider the candidacy for the membership committee to be an extremely irresponsible and damaging act for the foundation.
I am still convinced that the mistakes made in the past, as evidenced first by the opinions of the lawyers and then by the results of the two audits, were made in good faith and without any intention to harm TDF. At this point, there were two options: (1) to sit around a table and start working seriously on solving the problems, seeking a solution that would protect TDF without harming the companies in the ecosystem (except to an acceptable extent), or (2) to compete over who had the heaviest accusations and start shooting at their opponents, using their energies destructively rather than constructively.
I think it is pointless to recall the exchange of messages in public, which was probably only a percentage of the exchange in private. This was followed, shortly afterwards, by the hostile actions of one against the other, which, again, I think it is pointless to recall. All in all, a spectacle unworthy of a foundation created by a group of people who, at the time, seemed to be motivated by the same goal: to develop free and open source software for digital sovereignty, based on open standards.
I repeat for the umpteenth time. In the early years of the project, we all made mistakes: myself first, and deliberately so as not to create friction with the developers, which would have served no one at the time. Today, the time has come to correct that mistake, even if it costs me friendships within the project. Before I address my mistake, however, I would like to come full circle to the Boardās mistakes.
It is very difficult to define what the original mistake was, because we are now faced with an almost inextricable web of interconnected problems, one a consequence of the other (and in some cases attempts to prove that the previous ones were not mistakes). The tendering mechanism and related contracts? The free use of the brand? TDC (The Document Collective)? The use of the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest as a weapon? The staff policy? The paroxysmal recourse to law firms in search of a favourable opinion? The restrictive interpretation of the term LibreOffice Enterprise, so much for the marketing plan?
I would also add less visible mistakes, and certainly without direct consequences for TDF, such as the use of the English language as a means of pressure on native speakers. We are all different in terms of culture, personal experience and character, and we are all entitled to the same level of respect when expressing ourselves or trying to understand a language that is not our own and that we use with less familiarity, especially under pressure.
If I were to reread all the documents for the umpteenth time - but frankly I am tired of spending weeks on an exercise I already know is completely useless - I could probably find more mistakes made by Board members and used as indictments in some of the exchanges. Unfortunately, I am spoilt for choice, but it is a slaughter game I am not prepared to start.
To sum up. We made mistakes, which were first highlighted by the lawyersā opinions and then by the results of the audits. There is a way to resolve these mistakes, which unfortunately will not always be pleasant for everyone, but I believe it is still possible if everyone (EVERYONE) puts aside their accusations, no matter how legitimate or supportable, and everyone (EVERYONE) cooperates in the search for a solution. This is certainly not the path that has been taken in the last few months, and especially in the last few weeks.
And since I want to be clear on all points today, it is certainly not by playing games such as those related to the elections of the Membership Committee, or the payment of invoices, or the captious interpretation of the words of others, or the sending of āverbatimā messages that are only personal interpretations (he who has ears to hearā¦), and Iāll stop here, but the list could be much longer, that we pave the way. On the contrary, the risk is to make even those who are very patient, like yours truly, nervous.
So either you all (ALL) calm down and start assessing the issues for what they are, without making stupid assumptions (but if he proposes this, then it means thatā¦ and vice versa), avoid attempting ascensions to the Board and Membership Committee that make no sense at all in a community-based project, and work TOGETHER for the future of the project without trying to speculate on the intentions of the next one - which hopefully do not exist - in search of a point of attack, or in a year or so we will all be mourning the project that was and is no more.
I will end by revealing what my mistake was. I always thought, and still think, that the Engineering Steering Committee was a very nice way of creating a gatekeeper to development. I have been familiar with the problem since 1984, when, with a degree in humanities and two masters, one in marketing and one in management, I was given the task of coordinating the development of a new impact printer (the only technology there was at the time), at the head of about 150 hardware and software engineers.
When the head of the 150 engineers, who felt that he had been usurped in the role of project manager for this printer, involved me in the first meeting with his staff by presenting me with the technical drawings of the mechanics and the listing of what he thought the firmware should be, using a language of numbers and diagrams, I immediately understood the characteristics of the trap. For this reason, the next meeting was organised outdoors, where there was no chance of me being embarrassed in front of documents I could never understand, even after years of study.
And so, sitting on the grass around a tape recorder, we had one of the best brainstorming sessions I have ever attended, trying to imagine who would buy the printer and for what application in two or three yearsā time (when the printer would be announced). The Compuprint 4/66 was the first printer on the market with a display (12 characters) and a keyboard (4 keys), a quantum leap forward from DIP switches (anyone who has seen them can only agree with me).
On 12 February 1987, at the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham, the Compuprint 4/66 printer won the RITA (Recognition of IT Achievement) award for the most innovative product of 1986, and I was interviewed by the BBC. By the end of 1987, the 4/66 had achieved a 40% share of the European professional impact printer market, a record still unrivalled today.
So if anyone ever wondered why I never attended an Engineering Steering Committee meeting, even when I was invited to do so, the reason is very simple: I already knew how it would end, so I preferred to avoid it. The ESC is an elegant way of keeping away from development those who have no technical expertise in the development itself, but who might have interesting ideas about how the product should evolve (such as the display and keyboard in an impact printer, which previously allowed no user interaction).
If I had written these things in 2011, I would probably be out of the project today, because the developers would have done everything they could to get rid of me. Today, I allow myself the luxury of writing this in public, knowing that I will raise a few eyebrows but still be heard. And this time I would be wrong not to write it. Let us make ESC a resource for looking far, not for controlling what happens in development. TDF needs our collective intelligence, not our personal squabbles, to move forward.
Today, we donāt even need a lawn and a tape recorder to get together and discuss how to solve problems. We can even do it from a distance, around a virtual table. All we have to do is agree on the timing. Iāll be out here waiting, let me know.