[VOTE] Adopt version 2 of the Conflict of Interest Policy

Hi all,

as the community hasn’t reported any major issues with the draft of the Conflict of Interest Policy version 2 I’m proposing the following motion:

The board adopts version 2 of the Conflict of Interest Policy linked below.

The document will added to the Board of Directors Rules of Procedure page replacing the previous version.

The vote runs for 72 hours from now.

+1

I support this motion.

Paolo

(Sorry, premature send!)

I vote NO because:

  • There has been no formal review, not even a casual mention at the Board meeting, and it was only posted 2 weeks ago which is not adequate time
  • Despite being a dense and complex document there is no guide to what has changed, who changed it and why
  • The document seems to lack sufficient CoI guidance relating to staff, who in this Board have been the main group subject to CoI
  • The document seems (in section 6) to be based on old grievances rather than general cases

This motion is premature and should be withdrawn until there can be a meeting at which the document is discussed.

+1
Sophie

Hi @webmink,

it would have been very appreciated if you shared your thoughts then when the draft was presented or if you actively participated in improving the policy when a review was voted on 6 months ago.

Nobody reported any major issue with the updated version of the policy so one can presume it’s ready to be voted.

The rules of procedures state “Drafts of amended rules, or the intent to cancel them in entirety, need to be made available at least one week in advance.” so 2 weeks seems to be an adequate period of time.

As stated 2 weeks ago for a similar query: “A lot of improvements have been implemented so I recommend to read it in its entirety instead of trying to compare it to the previous iteration.”

Members of the board that are also members of staff read the CoI Policy, fully understood it and I’m sure you would agree that they acted in an exemplar manner showing that they did not require additional guidance.

As stated when the draft has been presented: “Lessons have been learned from the past and that’s why it includes a lot more guidance in relation to how to recognise a conflict of interest and what to do with it.”

What you call “old grievances” are example of situations where members of the board would have benefited from clearer guidance to avoid behaviours that created a large number of issues for TDF over the years. If you missed the connection between behaviours and clauses then the board could help you refreshing your memory during the next meeting.

I’m sure you would agree that it is our duty to make explicit certain rules that are based on past behaviours so that they won’t happen in future boards and will not waste time and money that would have been better invested in LibreOffice and our community.

1 Like