Dear Florian, dear Trustees,
For your information, the decision is not correct, because the disputed vote of Simon Phipps, our Deputy Chairperson was a clear disapproval. Moreover, not only for me, but must be for the majority of the Board and our supervisory body, the Membership Committee, and our ED, too, according to the following evidence. In a previous vote, my similarly strong disapproval (but with a really conditional NO, i.e. using 3rd conditional tense) was accepted a few weeks ago:
-------- Original Message, redacted text annotated by […] --------
Subject: [DECISION] […]
Date: 2025-12-19 15:30
From: Florian Effenberger […]
To: tdf-directors@lists.documentfoundation.org
Cc: […non-affiliated Membership Committee members…]
[…]
Result of vote:
[…] disapprovals: […] Laszlo
[…]
Statement Laszlo: "I suggest to abort this rushed vote, because […],
and […] Otherwise I agree with […] (and with […] about our fiduciary
duties), and I would have voted with -1.
[…]
Florian
-------------------------- End of Message -------------------------------
Changing this fair practice, and not interpreting a disapproval (or approval), as it was intended, moreover, and not reporting this and the suspected problems in a timely manner puts the integrity of the recent vote at risk. So at the very least, I suggest fixing the decision by following the previous practice or re-voting, if the board majority really does not need consensus on our Community Bylaws. I would note, however, that such harsh treatment of our Deputy Chairperson’s vote may make consensus more desirable than ever.
Best regards,
László