[VOTE] Adopt version 1 of Community Bylaws

Board Discuss
#41

I really don’t think we need a Turing-complete voting system at TDF. Generally e.g. voting systems at parliaments have only three voting buttons, “yes”, “no”, and “abstain”, and I think that’s for a reason.

Using forum posts as a voting mechanism will of course give voters the opportunity to try slip in conditionals, much like using paper ballots in local elections will give me the opportunity to try to write conditionals there. But that would just result in my vote being discarded.

@webmink could just have done what @nemeth did, that is, give an unambiguous vote combined with a statement.

So I give √-1 on the ongoing silliness and suggest we move on.

3 Likes
#42

Hi @floeff ,

Of course nobody is asking you to violate rules or regulations - but me and others are obviously puzzled, what those regulations are. If you want to avoid the impression that this is a fairly arbitrary (and seemingly convenient) exclusion of significant dissent, then please be specific, what your personal decision to exclude @webmink is based on.

It is clearly not Germany’s civil code, nor is that regulated in the board’s rules of procedure. Quite obviously, if the rules of procedure would actually be followed, then according to § 11. General Rules, “TDF employees are barred from holding or seeking elected position in TDF” - and then perhaps other votes should not be counted.

Please clarify.

Best, Thorsten

2 Likes
#43

What’s the problem with that at least? @floeff I mean, the community starts creating statistics about abstaining members… Simon was clearly involved in that vote. :woozy_face:

#44

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

#45

Reopening past votes might not be a good idea.

However, as in yesterday‘s board meeting we learned by surprise that [REDACTED: name of company] is a customer of a board member’s company, which was not revealed at the time of voting, there might be a CoI problem.

I talked to other participants of the meeting and several confirmed they heard the same, so we may have to follow-up on that.

#46

I do confirm that Laszlo clearly stated that he has or had the company of one of the former members of the board of directors, and former trustees, as a customer.

I had indeed to remind him once again of his duty to disclose his affiliations or interests that might influence his decisions.

Laszlo hasn’t yet explained his failure of disclosing a personal interest that might turn into a conflict of interest as the vote was related to the company with which he might have a financial dependency.

I’d be very interested in receiving more information about the matter as I presume also other member of the board are interested in a clarification and evaluation of a potential violation of our Conflict of Interest Policy.

#47

Reopening past votes might not be a good idea.

I tend to agree - and yet the current TDF board does this all the time.
It regularly undoes votes where it thinks it is convenient while not
undoing others that it also claims are/were (partially?) invalid: it’s a
mess.

As I read Laszlo’s mail (and perhaps I’m confused) he showed rather
clearly with examples that your behavior in vote tallying was arbitrary
in this case. So then we have this random distraction conflated that
deserves its own thread:

However, as in yesterday‘s board meeting we learned by surprise that

with some unverified and (I imagine inaccurate) hearsay - casting vague
accusations against an unnamed director, who weirdly then Paolo names as
Laszlo in the next mail. Yet still without a clear accusation that can
be clearly answered - that’s just terrible practice.

We should address and clarify that of course rather than turning it into
yet another ‘truthy’ accusation of badness with no basis in fact.

Either way - lets not get distracted by that. Lets get back to the
topic. It would be nice if votes were impartially and consistently
tallied - do you have a proposal to ensure that they are ? Laszlo’s was
to re-do the vote - that seems unlikely to produce a different result
and is easy to do, so why not ?

Regards,

Michael.

2 Likes
#48

To pick this up again, since there has been no helpful engagement to clarify this supposed issue:

And for the record - I believe this is yet another unpleasant smear, apparently with no substantiation, and no substance against a particular board member. But given that it is no doubt aimed insinuating some bad behavior by un-named corporate contributors - perhaps you can get it out into the open properly so it can be addressed and resolved. I can understand the attraction of keeping it in a list of useful, imagined grievances - but it’s better to keep a short account I think.

1 Like
#49

I certainly heard one member of the current BoD describing an ecosystem company as a customer.

#50

At the board meeting the following day when this was raised, an MC member who was also present noted this was a misunderstanding of what the director in question said, and that director then confirmed he had been misunderstood and stated categorically he had no such customer.

I really do not understand why the group of directors who always vote together are insisting on remembering the misunderstanding on Monday but not the clarification on Tuesday.

1 Like
#51

i am happy they vote !
other directors never make a vote …

#52

that seems factually incorrect?

#53

here is data i posted november 2025 :

"some statistic of ‘‘decision’’ category - last decisions, participate :

sophie 24
eliane 24
paolo 24
mike 23
osvaldo 24
simon 11
laszlo 3"

what is more problem ? ‘‘always vote together’’ or not vote in 50 % plus of votes ?

#54

I did not state either was a problem, that’s your choice as usual. Please do not hijack the thread, it has already been hijacked.

1 Like
#55

What I remember hearing the other day does not match with what a quick Google search tells me.

To me, the situation is unclear at best. However, in the rather difficult situation TDF is in, we need our situation easier, but not more complicated.

I’ll not comment on the rest of this thread, which is rather frustrating.

#56

Unless you share your google search query, or be more specific otherwise, your statement is not improving the situation - but instead adds more innuendo. And I don’t think that’s fair, nor helpful.

Best, Thorsten

#57

This document is a travesty. Taken together with the expulsion-by-non-renewal mechanism, it already has, and will, result in the TDF’s ruling clique being able to effectively purge any opposition. I am sorry for not having had the time to disparage the document in detail, and I hope to still do so soon.

It goes without saying that any TDF trustee not entirely out of their mind demand an immediate repeal of these bylaws.

1 Like
#58

→ Log - HEAD - infra/documentfoundationorg - Gitiles

  1. 09aaf73 Team: add Vissarion Fysikopoulos by Ilmari Lauhakangas · 20 hours ago master
  2. 8f83ec6 Members list as of 03-2026 by Ilmari Lauhakangas · 3 days ago
  3. de9c056 Members list as of March 2026 by Sophie Gautier · 5 days ago
  4. 186ae7f Members list as of 03-2026 by Ilmari Lauhakangas · 9 days ago
  5. 3724d27 Team: add Neil Roberts by Ilmari Lauhakangas · 10 days ago
#59

I don’t see anyone “purging” anyone. We find a variety of opinions in this forum, I would guess there are also some personal attacks written down. None of the users have been blocked, none of the postings have been removed - with this board at least. In the past, we have seen such occasions, including edited messages, forced moderation and other things.

#60

It’s possible you are misunderstanding Eyal here. I don’t think he is referring to censoring forum postings, I believe he is referring to the purge of 30 or so faultless TDF trustees on the basis of a rule that was added to the draft bylaws just before they were waved through by the board majority.

1 Like

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.