Given the vote proceeded (my rhetorical comment was not a condition) I clearly voted no as well as explaining why.
S.
Given the vote proceeded (my rhetorical comment was not a condition) I clearly voted no as well as explaining why.
S.
You voted with “If”. That is conditional and can not be counted. Only clear, unconditional votes can.
The comment was clearly not a condition on the vote itself but a rhetorical consequence of my comments. But even if it was you need to count it as abstaining as I participated in the vote. If you’re including comments in the closure you also need to include mine.
S.
Congratulations to the TDF Board of Directors for putting in place the Community Bylaws. These are a very important milestone in our foundation’s governance, ensuring stability, safety and independence at the home of LibreOffice
Thanks to everyone who gave their feedback and suggestions, so that we could incorporate them into the document
This is a great step give TDF a good future as a truly independent foundation.
@Osvaldo_Gervasi worked on an Italian translation of the community bylaws, which I’ll attach here. Thanks a lot!
CommunityBylaws-V1-IT.pdf (89,0 KB)
Hi @floeff ,
It seems pretty obvious, what @webmink 's intention was here, even more so after his clarification:
It would be easy & appropriate for you, to just edit the post with the vote tally & reflect that. Not doing that under normal circumstances would simply make you look petty; for an important vote like this one though, it gives the impression that significant opposition to the bylaws should be buried.
Not a good look, and not a very transparent handling of the case, either. In the same vein, the recent blog post announcing the bylaws talks about them being “based on feedback from the community”.
Well, if only that were the case…
One might have a very different opinion about his point of view, intention and the condition he put on a choice he could have eventually picked.
He has been asked to clarify his position and to provide a clear vote, as everyone else did, but chose not to do so.
Florian has made the right choice in counting clear votes.
Under any circumstance your comment violates the communication guidelines you promoted, the statutes and the bylaws.
Even as a non member you are free to provide constructive feedback on matters discussed publicly, insulting people, especially members of staff performing their duties, isn’t acceptable.
Do you recognise your mistake and are you willing to apologise for the insulting comment?
What is not transparent in a case that can be followed by anyone in this public thread?
As kindly requested previously to others, please do actually read the Bylaws and you’ll notice the inclusions of lessons learned from past events as well as improvements implemented considering comments made also in this public forum.
Hi @PaoloVecchi ,
not everything you disagree with ‘violates the communication guidelines’, nor is everything based on ‘undisputable facts’ automatically ok to say (in particular, if the facts were actually disputed).
But this seems a distraction - the question was, why did @floeff not do at least the minimally-required edit, and recorded @webmink 's dissenting statement, and an abstention vote?
Are you saying that someone instructed @floeff to ignore @webmink 's vote? Then indeed, apologies for chasing Florian for it. The even more concerning question though would be, why the ruling board faction would do that then.
Best, Thorsten
Votes must be clear and unconditional. If they are not, they are not to be counted, as they are not valid votes. And not valid cannot have dissenting opinions either.
As you seem to think following regulations and rules is petty, this conversation is pointless. The assumption someone had instructed me makes it even ridiculous.
I was both polite and clear that my vote was unconditionally “no” if and when the vote proceeded, and my comments were not conditional either.
Since the vote is disputed let’s void it and rerun it as a roll-call vote at the meeting next week.
By the way, where are the rules of procedure that are being followed here?
S
Hi,
if you use an if clause in front, your declaration of intention is not unconditional and thus it is void.
Regards,
Andreas
I fear this thread now needs a bit of explanation to the community.
There is a public board vote. Some votes are explicit and clear:
Then there is a participation in the vote thread that has introductory and explanatory text, and then a “NO” preceded by an if clause.
This means I cannot easily summarize the vote and proceed. Instead, I remember such votes are not possible, but anyways I do research on this. This costs time and money and energy.
The outcome of that research is that if the vote is not a clear one, and in particular if it contains conditional clauses (which the word “if” is), it cannot be counted at all. It is to be treated as if it was not casted. This is not related to our rules of procedure, but to civilian law.
This is also logical. Imagine three people vote “yes” with such an “if” statement like
“If the majority supporst this obviously fantastic vote, I vote yes.”
and three others vote explictly “no”.
Is the vote valid? Was it casted? Was the decision approved? Is it undecided?
Now what if I simply had counted the vote and be “relaxed”, so to say? There would be a risk that others challenge it for this very reason. In result, no matter how it was summarized, someone could have complained. This is a situation one cannot resolve easily, which is why clear votes are so very important.
Now we have an ongoing discussion. This again costs time.
All this happens when we have other topics we could work on to further our mission:
For all these items, I would love to see a comparable “passionate” participation from everyone, instead of spending more time on the vote counting.
The vote was done in public. All board members comments are visible in public. Nothing is lost, nothing is hidden, nothing has been obfuscated. No matter how that particular message is counted or not, it does not change the outcome of the vote.
The irony is that from some I’ve repeatedly heard in the past to “Never challenge a board decision in public” or “Follow the chairperson and don’t challenge them”. Oh, the irony…
I would like to move on and work on actual problems, not on an academic discussion how to count votes, as this does not help us to further our mission, neither does it address our most pressing topics.
As for some of the words used here: Working at TDF you grow a thick fur, but this is not the communication style I want to see in this community.
never occurred that you, as a founder and full time appointed, may just get the communication you deserve ?
" we are all human after all "
I fear this one would too 
→ Arrangements for Board Election? - #3 by aszucs
this one certainly also 
→ Community Bylaws initial version - #36 by caolan
… and, just for the fun, this one maybe : Task #3842: Disable hyphenation in WordPress - Websites - The Document Foundation Redmine
definitely a critical topic on the (fosdem or not) agenda.
That is factually incorrect. As you know, any declaration of intent needs to be interpreted by examining the understanding of it by a reasonable person, and “…has to be explored without clinging to the literal meaning of the expression.”
And this is exactly why a clear, explicit vote is so very important. Otherwise things are left open for interpretation, which may change over time or depending on who interprets. A clear +1 or -1 prevents that.
Votes cannot be open to interpretation. They must be clear. Otherwise they are not to be counted, which is exactly the situation here.
I hear you and understand the rule you have devised but still insist my vote be recorded.
Then let’s discuss whether any of the “votes” conducted the way this one has been are valid. They are conducted outside the scope of any meetings so there’s no notice of a meeting, often no board proposer and never any seconder, no discussion of the motion, no consideration if the matter is ripe for decision, an arbitrary voting and counting process by a person outside the board, and no record of a decision in any minutes. Many votes are at best indicative and at worst invalid.
S