[VOTE] Creating a venue for Trustees

Board Discuss
#1

At today’s Board meeting I was asked to prepare a motion for the Board to address some of the comments made at and around the recent Townhall meetings concerning private Trustee communications. There was earlier discussion here.

Background
TDF’s statutes describe the trustees as a body that can have deliberations and make decisions by simple-vote (see § 11). Some Trustees complained there is only an opt-in mailing list (tdf-internal@…) and only a few individuals have the privilege of broadcasting to the Trustees (on tdf-members@…). This resolution seeks to address the need as far as possible so that all Trustees are in the best position available to meet their responsibilities to the Foundation.

Motion
Noting that Trustees have a duty of care for the Foundation yet lack a private but all-inclusive venue to discuss their responsibilities, it is resolved:

  1. That as an interim measure tdf-internal@… shall from now on include all Trustees on an opt-out basis;
  2. That staff shall migrate tdf-internal@… to a private topic on TDF’s Discourse using LDAP to automatically permit access, while leaving individuals free to adjust their own settings for the topic so as to avoid too much traffic.
  3. That staff shall propose mitigations for the language barriers some Trustees may face in participating.

The vote runs 72h from now.

–
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

#2

My personal vote on this motion: +1

#3

Clarification questions:

  • interim measure until item (2.) is carried out? And what about afterwards?
  • Is a “topic” something like “board-discuss”? i.e. will tdf-internal be mirrored with a subforum like board-iscuss, but private to TDF members only? Otherwise, can you please elaborate more on what exactly this proposition is?
  • Is this expected to take development/engineering effort, or is this something we (or rather, TDF staff) can take care of, relatively easily?
  • Are you suggesting that voting on motions or propositions would be possible using the Discourse tdf-internal subforum (“topic”) from ? If so, what’s your suggestion about when motions/propositions can be put to a vote?

And a side-comment: This post is a good example of the kind of transparency we should expect from the BoD. When the BoD is voting on some proposition, we should hear about it, see the proposition, and be able to comment on it - right away, and not a month later. Exceptions to this rule should be few and far between. (And we should not depend on one BoD member feeling a special need to sound us out on a matter; it should just be the norm.)

#4

Updating to respond to Eyal’s updated questions

Exactly that, yes. We use private topics on OSI’s Discourse to good effect.

Yes, once the list is migrated to Discourse all members will be automatically added based on LDAP and will be able to control their own engagement rather than all the complexity of opt-in/opt-out and needing to get past a gatekeeper to post to all.

I believe this is all a straighforward sysadmin task and won’t need more than incidental development effort.

This is what was proposed for board-discuss and seems smart, so it would also be good on a tdf-internal topic.

#5

As a long term subscriber to both the tdf-internal and tdf-members ML, I would be happy to see both ML retired in favor of a Discourse hosted Trustee venue. With follow-up migration of the ML archival records as Discourse topics on this venue.

That said, I would not like to see such venue cause our elected Directors or Membership Committee members to become reluctant to make decisions or take action on behalf of the Foundation for lack of consensus or formal voting distributed via such a venue.

The elected terms and CoI limits are such that I implicitly trust our elected officers to best manage the operations and interests of the Foundation throughout their terms, without having to solicit approval of those actions in advance from the Trustee membership.

The venue should operate only as a channel to notify Trustee membership privately of issues affecting the Foundation and to distribute minutes and supporting correspondence of actions taken by BoD or the MC.

With that understanding, that the venue is not a channel for oversight nor interference in BOD / MC actions, then such venue makes sense and improves collaborative efforts and transparency available to all Foundation Trustees by offering a communications channel open to all trustees. Conceived, implemented and operated thusly I can support such BoD action.

V Stuart Foote, Trustee
Cornish, New Hampshire USA

1 Like
#6

Transparency and engagement of members is truly important. This was not working out in the past for numerous reasons. Three examples:

  • Some trustees got actively and repeatedly threatened for speaking out.
  • We also saw forced moderation for elected board members during an actual election.
  • Others found themselves mentioned on conference slides for opinions expressed.

Luckily things have massively improved with this board.

I think many of us want trustees to speak out and be interested, but it’s not more forced e-mails that will make people participate more. Some are already overwhelmed with the amount of e-mails they receive on tdf-members. Adding more e-mails will not raise participation.

The language barrier is something that less the team can address, but everyone of us - by using simple English, that can be understood and translated much easier, and by possibly having localizers in the calls and providing time for that. This was an idea brought up in the past but turned down repeatedly. We should reconsider that, because true participation is only possible if one can understand what is said and if there is enough time for one to express oneself without getting the feeling of “blocking” a meeting.

The statutes require TDF to provide one means of making announcements to members, which is tdf-members and intentionally low traffic, as it is mandatory for all members. Additionally TDF provides two more means - a public Discourse forum and an internal e-mail list, so we have all elements covered: public and private, mailing list and forum. All the members are informed each quarter about the tdf-internal list and we have seen lately this works - more people have subscribed in the past weeks.

Discourse has advantages, but also some drawbacks. First, we have seen manipulation of messages posted which was completely unsanctioned, so my trust in the use of Discourse is limited. An e-mail that is sent to several people’s inboxes is harder to get manipulated afterwards. Second, while Discourse provides e-mail notification, it needs to be enabled and we had cases where people were not getting notified.

If we want members to participate, we need to focus on having a welcoming, inviting, encouraging environment, independent of languages or time zones. Let‘s start with that - our energy there is very well invested. Much better than creating yet another tool.

#7

Hi Simon,

-1
I am not in favor of this motion.
The existing systems are efficient and sufficient.

Best,

Eliane Domingos, 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

#8

Forcibly opting in people in a mailing list/service they have shown no interest in feels like is coming out of the playbook of corporations that don’t always have their users’ interests in mind.

Trustees that are interested in talking with other trustees have a venue already or even several venues as they have other lists for those that are not comfortable in exchanging messages in English.

The most vocal trustees on this matter include a few former directors that weren’t keen in sharing with the trustees what was actually going on in the board during previous terms, it is odd to see they now demand a change that the vast majority of trustees hasn’t asked for.

You are one of those privileged individuals but I think tdf-members@ should only be used for announcements from the board and MC, not to be abused by single members.

Migrating to Discourse is another big issue. During the last term I was certain that the moderation rights would have been abused by a couple of fellow members of the board so I asked to have these rights to be removed from board members. That didn’t happen and as expected messages, including votes, have been deleted or edited by those 2 board members depriving the community of a mean to understand what was going on.

Before even thinking about migrating tdf-internal we have to put in place measures that stops abuses and processes to deal with posts that are misleading or, as it happened, outright lies.

Then once the “politics” and toxicity have been removed from the list I’m sure that more trustees will feel like joining in constructive discussions without the need of imposing the will of a handful of people on them.

Having said all that, my vote is -1

Ciao

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

#9

Hi,

My big concern is also the forced moderation here, that happened in the previous Board term when posts from some Board members were being hidden in their default state and it wasn’t clear who was doing what, or why they were being moderated. It was pretty shocking to see TBH.

So until there are some very clear rules about that to stop some people hiding others’ posts, -1 from me…

#10

I observe that all the people involved were directors, so this is entirely under our own control and not a good reason to block.

Meanwhile the only way for Trustees to communicate with all Trustees is via tdf-members@… which is rigorously controlled to the extent that even I as deputy chair have to ask for posts to be moderated through by staff. So I am unclear why censorship by directors is a problem to stop us opening up to allow Trustees to perform the role the Statutes envisage, but not a problem elsewhere.

#11

You can see their names and how they selectively censored or approved messages in the moderation panel.

#12

You might want to scroll down a bit more to find out that those 2 directors did the bulk of the censoring but 1 trustee stands out for trying to censor posts that had nothing wrong apart from not being aligned with the narrative that some wanted to push.

#13

I observe that all the people involved were directors, so this is entirely under our own control and not a good reason to block.

Also in the last board, when these things happened, all the people involved were directors, so that does not grow my trust. If you have spoken out in support of e.g. Paolo, whose messages have been hidden and at least in one occasion manipulated, please share the link - I would be very interested how that discussion turned out, so maybe I will be more optimistic then.

For the moment I’m concerned about Discourse as a tool after what we have seen.

Meanwhile the only way for Trustees to communicate with all Trustees is via tdf-members@…

We do have many channels, including a private tdf-internal mailing list, a public board-discuss forum, Telegram, Matrix and many others. There’s a wide variety of choice for trustees to engage in conversation! Even more so, each quarter, every three months, we announce the tdf-internal list to each and every member again.

which is rigorously controlled to the extent that even I as deputy chair have to ask for posts to be moderated through by staff. So I am unclear why censorship by directors is a problem to stop us opening up to allow Trustees to perform the role the Statutes envisage, but not a problem elsewhere.

I am not sure if that now helps the discussion. Staff supports, amongst other things, with moderation of lists. As we have seen, they do so even during nighttimes, holidays and with usually a very quick reaction time. As one example, the moderation of your mail on the list took only few minutes yesterday evening, even if it was way past 8pm already.

Any announce-only list, like e.g. the announce@tdf list, is moderated for everyone, to prevent accidential posting of messages. This, by the way, was something required by every board ever since, and it makes a lot of sense.

It creates quite mixed feelings to read “rigorously controlled” and “censorship” in this context.

I would have continued now to explain that also the function of the list and how to get moderator rights has been explained during the onboarding, but as this discussion is taking a very unpleasant turn, I’d rather not.

#14

I regard that as a bug not a feature as it dilutes the discussion, and observe that none of those reaches all Trustees. That means some may be excluded from important topics - for example many Trustees may still be unaware of the significant discussion on tdf-internal@… relating to “Complaint against a board decision, according to § 11 (3) of the TDF statutes”, which was not allowed through to tdf-members@…

#15

Hi @floeff ,

It seems to match my experience though, @floeff - I’ve tried to send two emails to all trustees, one on October 17th, the other on November 14 - both were apparently silently discarded.

Still, we continue to use it for all public discussions - and @floeff in an earlier discussion, you mentioned that regular posts on Discourse trigger an email in the backend, which you considered safe enough for board voting.

I cannot help the impression that this is a very selective argument, and I’ve yet to see a convincing explanation why TDF should not improve communication amongst its trustees. At the very least, a counter-proposal would be appreciated, for what is a very obvious problem.

Best, Thorsten

1 Like
#16

I wonder why you even tried to send emails through tdf-members@ when you know that it isn’t a list that anyone can use.

Now that the people deleting or editing posts and votes are not in the board anymore things are better but I wouldn’t trust it as a reliable archive of tdf-internal unless measures are implemented to make tampering impossible as many will then rely on the on-line version to make sense of current and past discussions.

Ciao

Paolo

#17

Hi Simon,

My vote: -1

Why, because for me, no matter the tool, it’s not the purpose here. Members of the foundation are there because they care about the foundation and want to show their support by applying. But the most important to my eyes is that they are contributors, engaged in their contribution for the future of the project, they dedicate their time and their skills to the foundation.

Lot of them are not fluent with English (an no, automatic translation tools are not working in this context, that’s why we have real people translating when needed). Receiving mails in languages they don’t understand is not welcomed.

Lot of them do no want to read or participate to politics. They want the foundation to be correctly managed and they vote to elect a board of directors to represent them. That’s why we have the announce list, to give news and events at the foundation level.

I would be sad, if joining a community, I’m forced to subscribe to a discussion list or a forum and receive numerous mails that I don’t care about or I don’t understand. Sad because it’s exactly how I see the spam I receive, unsollicitate communication. And for me it’s a high risk of losing contributors.

The actual announce list has a reminder to subscribe to the internal list every 3 months. Those who need help, ask me to subscribe them and I’ve done it for numerous people when the bug for subscription appeared. No need to add more tools or communication channels when what exists works already.

Sophie

#18

Hi @PaoloVecchi

the original statement was this:

So I appreciate you agreeing with Simon, that indeed only a few privileged members can broadcast to all trustees - and that this channel is “rigorously controlled” to the point that some might feel censored.

Currently, there’s no archive of tdf-internal. reliable or not. So you seem to agree that Simon’s proposal makes a bad setup incrementally better. Why are you voting -1 then?

Best, Thorsten

#19

Hi @sophi ,

I believe the above doesn’t do justice to the intended role of a trustee. In a foundation, trustees should have at least a minimal interest in the foundation business and politics, to be able to fulfill their oversight role (which is what a board of trustees is meant to do!). As the statutes outline: “membership is not required for participation in the fulfillment of the foundation’s goals” - i.e. community members who simply want to contribute in their area of expertise, or where they have fun, can do so independently of the trustee status.

Since you’re currently drafting the community bylaws, perhaps some thoughts could be added around the intended role of trustees (the statutes are quite minimal in that regard, but German civil & case law has a rich supply of examples)?

I agree this is a problem. But it is already an issue for the very basic task of a trustee (electing board and MC), as the current setup provides opportunities for certain members to be the gateway to local communities (with the danger of creating choke points and carrying undue influence). Beyond that, all past emails to tdf-members have been in English, and equally so are the statutes & other documents governing TDF.

It is therefore a laudable and supportable long-term goal, to give equitable access to all community members, regardless of the language skills. There’s hope that machine translation technology is increasingly able to help with that. But today, I don’t think prohibiting members to talk to each other in English (with an opt-out mechanism) is furthering that goal, nor does it help the foundation to blindside its trustees.

Best, Thorsten

1 Like
#20

Sorry, but It is not clear to me, in which position Florian does their comments.
I have not been able to find what his rights and duties are as Executive Director. My bad. If anyone can point me to the document in which they are contained, I would appreciate it.

By the way, for the sake of clarity, I think it would be nice and helpful, if we would add at the end of the comments our name and an indication of our position in relation to the TDF, with what we are making them.

Miguel Angel —TDF Member

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