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.
This seems profoundly unreasonable. Providing the original source ODF of both documents, would allow an easy document compare that will highlight the changes rather effortlessly and allow them to be commented on. That you refused to do it before here doesn’t make it somehow reasonable to dump a lot of random unexplained changes to a 3000+ word policy with no red-line.
Can I ask if this has been signed-off on by a Rechtsanwalt ? I believe that should be normal practice for new policies.
Also - has the whole board been involved in the “lot of improvements” and legal advice around that ? or some subset - and if so whom ?
I agree with @webmink and @mmeeks, it’s materially impossible to address such a rushed review.
And as a side note, one may see that this rush is not so pressing concerning the BoD elections, or even the BoD calls’ minutes. This double standard is not a very good look for a “foundation”.
And as a pragmatic side side note, with are already at +3, seems clear @elianedomingos will come up soon for +4, so why bother discussing here
In the end, seems this doesn’t only apply to source code :
This is a policy for the board that some rushed to comment only when it has been put to a vote. That’s 6 months after the review has been voted in and 2 weeks since it has been published.
It might not be perfect but it’s a huge improvement on the previous one that took about 3 months of extenuating debates with parties weren’t keen in spelling out what a conflict of interest is and how to behave if there is the potential for one which resulted in a clearly ineffective policy.
If you actually read the 8 pages of that document you will notice that it doesn’t contain random clauses and that they are generally are self explanatory.
If you or others want to suggest further improvements then they can be collected so that they can be evaluated for version 2.1.
I vote YES to adopt the Conflict of Interest Policy as presented.
My vote is based on my fiduciary duty to serve the interests of The Document Foundation. As I stated during the Board meeting on December 17, 2025, we are here to make improvements and ensure the mistakes of the past never happen again.