[VOTE] Create Board Staffing Committee

[webmink]

The following motion is open for voting by directors for 72 hours.

Motion

Create a committee of the Board comprising all directors with no standing conflict of interest concerning staffing matters. This committee will discuss any topic related to staffing on a seperate mailing list and if necessary in separate committee meetings. It will build consensus proposals on staffing actions and policies to be confirmed in anonymised form by the full directors.

Background

The last Board election and subsequent resignations have now resulted in the board including three directors (Italo, Sophie and Eliane) and one deputy (Mike) with material connections to staffing matters. Unlike previous boards, this means that the full board cannot consider employment matters and a subset is required. Over the life of this board, a variety of ad-hoc procedures have been used to work around this problem. These have often allowed some staff members to participate in discussions on the basis that they are “contractors” or “staff” and thus not “the same” somehow.

It is not enough to merely abstain. Having members of staff present as general employment/contracting conditions, staffing policy or specific issues relating to colleagues are discussed is clearly inappropriate. It is likely to breach confidentiality/privacy, may be chilling to discussing directions that are in the Foundation’s interest but which may displease staff members (something that is unfortunately always a possibility as an employer), and might rise to level of “excess of power”. While it may be argued that final decisions of the Board should include all directors, it is entirely appropriate that such decisions be confirmatory. I must note that Italo has always scrupulously, positively and correctly removed himself from any discussion.

The most recent ad-hoc procedure that was used for recent adjustments to staff terms matches the one described above and was generally accepted by directors, so this motion (which I mentioned I would introduce at the November board meeting) formalises it.

–
Simon Phipps, Deputy Chair of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Winterfeldtstraße 52, 10781 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: Imprint | LibreOffice - Free and private office suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

[webmink]

My personal vote on this motion: +1

[italovignoli]

As I have already said during previous BoD meetings when this topic was discussed, I approve the motion. I feel quite uncomfortable when I receive messages that I would prefer not to receive because they are about human resource issues. I delete all of them, but in some cases I catch some information before they disappear from my sight, and this is something which I would like to avoid.

[PaoloVecchi]

I’m surprised to see this motion sent out for a vote with a text hasn’t been discussed previously and that unfortunately lacks of clarity on scope and processes as well as containing statements that are incorrect. I’ll provide some examples.

There is a mix of items in the “Background” section that do not match at all with your closing statement:

@webmink

The most recent ad-hoc procedure that was used for recent adjustments to staff terms matches the one described above and was generally accepted by directors, so this motion (which I mentioned I would introduce at the November board meeting) formalises it.

The statement is factually incorrect.

A very narrow HR task has been dealt with in an appropriate way without the need of a committee. That did not include, and it was never intended to include at all, any of the other elements listed in that section so the vote does not “formalise” what has been done, it clearly tries to add elements that have never been taken in consideration, it is far more reaching and open to potential abuse.

In a way the committee could secretly decide that anything, maybe even trying again to pass a motion to outsource TDF’s duties to a third party, is “in the Foundation’s interest but which may displease staff members” and then put something to a vote with an expected outcome as “it is entirely appropriate that such decisions be confirmatory.”

Where are the rules and checks to avoid abuses by the committee?
Who are the members of the committee you would consider suitable?
Who will decide what topics the committee will take on?
Who will determine how displeased staff members might be about an outcome to justify the choice of shifting the process to the committee?
etc.

Then I found also the following sentence misleading:

@webmink

These have often allowed some staff members to participate in discussions on the basis that they are “contractors” or “staff” and thus not “the same” somehow.

Directors that are also members of staff did not participate in discussions. In some cases, when the sensitivity/confidentiality of the topics allowed, they were present but never actively partecipated to or influenced the discussion in any way, fully in line with the advice received from the legal team on the behaviour that should be followed while in potential CoI setting a positive example of how directors should behave.

I could carry on but I believe there are already enough elements showing that the motion contains fundamental flaws that need to be corrected before even being taken in consideration for a valid vote.

The bulk of the HR matters have already been dealt with in a setup where the affected parties did not have any influence on discussions and the most sensitive topics have been discussed only between directors that are not members of staff in an efficient and confidential way.

There are no major/urgent HR items that need to be discussed soon so we have the time to clarify what your motion actually entails and what topics an eventual committee would need to discuss in a separate venue.

I would recommend that we schedule a slot during our FOSDEM meetings, if there are no other pressing matters, to see if the committee is actually necessary and eventually in which form.

Just for the avoidance of any doubts: This is NOT a vote as I cannot vote on something that is clearly a flawed motion containing factually incorrect statements and practically no definition of its intended purpose and limits.

Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Winterfeldtstraße 52, 10781 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: Imprint | LibreOffice - Free and private office suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

[Osvaldo_Gervasi]

I agree with Paolo’s evaluation that the motion is not suitable for voting,
so I’m also not ready to vote for it.

Regards,
–Osvaldo

[nemeth]

Dear Simon and all,

+1

Best regards,
László

–
László Németh, Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: Imprint | LibreOffice - Free and private office suite - Based on OpenOffice - Compatible with Microsoft

[nemeth]

Hi Paolo, hi Osvaldo,

My strong opinion is that the motion (on which the board started work in March) can answer most of your questions, e.g. see this part:

@webmink

It will build consensus proposals on staffing actions and policies to be confirmed in anonymised form by the full directors.

The current situation can destroy motivation and loyalty more easily, it is also unethical towards staff members who do not have access to less or more confidential staff matters (according to the very basic economical principles).

So I agree with Simon and Italo.

Best regards,
László

[PaoloVecchi]

Hi Laszlo,

apologies but I can’t find the information on which you can base your strong opinion or that could allow me to have a better understanding of this motion.

I had a look at a draft of motion that has been left abandoned since March (20240311-StaffCtte.odt) and I do not see any answer to my question as that draft does not even contains statements that might lead to those questions.

Are you talking about the same draft that the board hasn’t discussed yet or another one?

Could you at least copy/paste the answers you found in whatever draft of a motion you are looking at to see if we can make sense of it and remove the serious doubts about this motion?

As there is a draft of a proposal why has been proposed a motion for something completely different that has never been discussed in a form that is completely unsuitable for voting?

Ciao

Paolo