The post, in which I tried to explain in a simple and understandable way the causes of the problematic situation in which the Document Foundation finds itself, had 43 comments (some of which were my replies to comments) and was viewed 1,100 times. Given these figures, I would assume that it has been read by all the TDF Trustees.
The post I am referring to is this one: TDF situation in relation to the German Foundations Authority, and why this led the BoD to make an extremely difficult decision on the MC election (TDF situation in relation to the German Foundations Authority, and why this led the BoD to make an extremely difficult decision on the MC election). When I say that it is simple and understandable, I do so with full knowledge of the facts, because before publishing it I had several people completely unconnected to the project read it and ask them to assess the clarity of the text, and all these people confirmed that the text was clear and understandable even to those completely unconnected to the project.
I repeated several times in the text, also in response to some comments, that my statement was intended to define the legal contours of the issues based on the evidence provided by lawyers and a decision of the German Supreme Court. My statement also contained some personal opinions in order to clarify certain points on which speculation was possible, and in all these cases I made it clear that these were personal opinions.
Moreover, some of these personal opinions partially justified some of the illegitimate and inappropriate behaviour of the members of the two previous Board of Directors. This, judging by some of the comments, was understood by only a few, including none of those who should have understood it because they were the authors of those behaviours. Nor did they seem to understand it after reading My point of view on the history of the LibreOffice project (My point of view on the history of the LibreOffice project), another post in which I reiterated my opinions, which was followed by 11 comments and viewed 189 times.
In my opinion, here the lack of understanding has a specific instrumental reason, linked to communication objectives aimed at creating uncertainty and doubts, and thus confusing the ideas of those who enter the discussion at a later time. Looking at some comments, this has worked, and this is why I am writing again – although I am repeating the same statements already made multiple times, in writing and in public talks – about this topic.
In fact, I had already tried to clarify the issue in the replies to some comments on the first post, by providing both the original German and the English translation of the German Supreme Court ruling, along with other documents that might help in understanding the problem (which I repeatedly described as extremely complex). Unfortunately, at a certain point that discussion turned into the realm of personal insults, and I could not follow up further.
Unbelievably, after almost two months, someone continues to smuggle out his personal opinions as if they were legal opinions, and even asks to distribute them to all TDF Trustees, to create further confusion with the legal opinions and judgments of the German Supreme Court, which are the ones that make case law. Whether we like it or not, the management of a charitable foundation must follow the dictates of the law and not personal opinions.
In the second post, I tried to describe the evolution of the decision-making process within the board of the Document Foundation, and how all the initial discussions were based on common sense. Such an approach was probably sufficient at the time, because although the stakes were high, money was tight, so it was easy to conform to the canons of the non-profit sector. I also wrote that I thought everyone was acting in good faith at the time.
However, with the passing of time and the increase in donations, the transition to a more structured approach - based on recognised best practices at all levels, including the legal level - capable of guaranteeing growth according to rules that are also known and shared by the authorities, has been missing. Unfortunately, it is exactly the absence of this transition that has created the current problems. And on this point I think I can say that we are all a little guilty, again in good faith, of excessive naivety (i.e. we should have thought about it).
From that moment on, common sense in the application of the rules was no longer sufficient, because individual opinions on the principle of conflict of interest became secondary to the definitions provided by the law, and there is no individual opinion on the excess of power of representation, because it is the law, and certainly not the opinions of individuals, that defines the limits.
I would add, to emphasise the complexity of this principle, that the King of England - the most famous of those who fall within the bounds of the excess of power of representation - must abide by the rules laid down by law. And if the King of England himself must abide by the law… I think there is nothing more to be said.
Therefore, once we have established, on the basis of the opinions of lawyers specialised in this field (management of non-profit foundations), confirmed by a ruling of the German Supreme Court (which is case law), that certain decisions of the Board of Directors of The Document Foundation were unlawful due to excess of power of representation, in some cases aggravated by conflicts of interest, there is no choice but to act within the limits of the law.
In fact, even if we personally have different opinions on how to deal with the excess of power of representation and the CoI, when we are in office we have to abide by the law in the following order: 1. the German Constitution, 2. the German Law (Criminal and Private Law), and 3. the Foundation Statutes. Only at that point then we can express our own opinion by making it very clear that is our own opinion, and we do not agree with the law.
To argue that specialised lawyers and the German Federal Supreme Court (which makes case law) can be ignored, because the members of the Board - on the basis of their personal opinions - decided on the basis of the objectives of The Document Foundation and respected the principle of free competition, and are therefore guilty neither of the excess of power of representation nor of conflict of interest, is pointless. In fact, the authorities decide on the basis of the law and not on the basis of the opinions of individuals.
This attitude has been going on for at least two years and is one of the reasons for the freezing of the Board’s activities from 2022 to 2024, with all the negative consequences that this entails for The Document Foundation. In addition, it has caused confusion in the community, because the collaboration and friendship between people, which in some cases has lasted for years, has led some of them to believe in the validity of personal opinions rather than that of the law, based on the POV of their friends.
At this point, I must conclude with a comment that I never imagined I would have to make in 2010, the year of the birth of the LibreOffice project, which is also a question.
If you have problems understanding what laws must be abided by, and also show that you do not understand where the line is between abiding by the law and personal opinion, and also have the presumption to claim that your personal opinion is superior to the law, are you really able to take on the responsibility of representing the Document Foundation as a member of the Board or Membership Committee?
I repeat: in 2010, I never thought I would have to ask this question, because - perhaps naively, even at the age of 56 - I had full confidence in the people who had contributed to the birth of the LibreOffice project. Today that trust is gone, and for me that is a very bad sign for the future of the project.