Hey Guilhem,
Guilhem Moulin wrote:
Could the BoD clarify the short-term period and maybe even commit to
revisit the vote say, before the end of their term?
Though I cannot speak for the entire board, the above is my
understanding at least (I'd say this needs revisiting the latest in
early summer 2021).
The proposal was made to buy us time to sort things out, not as a
permanent setup.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
I consider that contributions to COOL, should not taken into consideration for TDF membership.
Hi all,
Hello,
1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for
the time being1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to
instead mirror the Collabora repo, for the time being, and make sure
we catch pull requests there, e.g. via the mentoring alias on TDF side2. to freeze (not delete) the translations for online in Weblate, for
the time beingThe decision will then also be announced and shared with the various
community mailing lists, to keep all the projects in the loop.The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the vote needs to
have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
The vote is quorate.
A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.
Result of vote: 3 approvals, 3 disapprovals, 1 abstain.
One deputy approves, one deputy disapproves.As the vote is a tied vote, § 9 IV of the statutes come to effect. The
Chairperson has the deciding vote, and voted +1 to the proposal.
as far as I know the statutes doesn't speak about a second vote of the
Chairperson here. The vote of the Chairperson is only deciding in such case.
Thus it counted only 3 approvals and not 4. The necessary approvals are
not reached and the request has not been accepted.
In addition: as far as I know two members of the board have a CoI on
this topic. But only one board member abstained from voting (correct
behavior). The second approved the proposal, instead of abstaining. This
could be seen as a violation of his duties as a member of the board or
his loyalty for TDF. Thus his vote had to been rejected (and not counted
in).
Conclusion: for both reasons the request has not approved, but rejected.
Regards,
Andreas
Hi Daniel,
I consider that contributions to COOL, should not taken into
consideration for TDF membership.
I'm sure the membership committee will take all of these things into
consideration as they deliberate. If that is their decision, perhaps it
is no bad thing to re-shape our membership over the next year.
It does however make it even more vital to get a mentor hired, unless
we want a rather smaller proportion of coders as members.
From the COOL perspective, our position is unchanged: We respect and
recognize the contribution of all the developers of LibreOffice and will
honor that in equivalent access: commit, translation etc. on our side.
Regards,
Michael.
The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the vote needs to
have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.
A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote.
The vote is quorate.
A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes.
Result of vote: 3 approvals, 3 disapprovals, 1 abstain.
One deputy approves, one deputy disapproves.
As the vote is a tied vote, § 9 IV of the statutes come to
effect. The Chairperson has the deciding vote, and voted +1 to the
proposal.
as far as I know the statutes doesn't speak about a second vote of
the Chairperson here. The vote of the Chairperson is only deciding
in such case.
I don't understand what you mean by "only deciding". Clearly, the
statutes (Satzung) intend for the Chairperson (Vorsitzender) or his
Deputy (Stellvertreter)) to act as a tie-break. Else the sentence
In the event of a tied vote, the chairman, or as a substitute the
vice chairman, has the deciding vote.
Bei Stimmengleichheit gibt die Stimme des Vorsitzenden, ersatzweise
seines Stellvertreters den Ausschlag.
Is wholly without effect, as it can never have any effect in
practice. Can you please give a scenario where the fact that, in your
interpretation and understanding of the Statutes, the vote of
Chairperson being "deciding" leads to a decision that would not have
been reached without the "deciding" quality of the vote?
Thus it counted only 3 approvals and not 4. The necessary approvals
are not reached and the request has not been accepted.
To make my question above more precise, the "deciding vote" of the
Chairperson applies only in case of "Stimmengleichheit" which I would
define (somewhat redundantly) as:
Gleichheit der Zahl der für zwei oder mehr zur Wahl stehenden
Alternativen, die in dieser Wahl eine (identische) Stimmenzahl haben
bekommen die höher als die Stimmenzahl der anderen Alternativen ist,
abgegebenen Stimmen
or in English
Equality of the number of votes cast for two or more alternatives
that have gotten a(n) (identical) number of votes in this election
that is higher than the number of votes for the other alternatives.
So what does "only deciding" mean? To take a decision without the vote
being "deciding", it needs to be "mit einfacher Mehrheit", which
Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehrheit#Einfache_Mehrheit)
defines as having strictly more votes than all other options together
(cumulatively), not counting abstention as another option.
If the vote got to "Stimmengleichheit", necessarily there is no
"einfache Mehrheit", so the intention is that the Chairperson vote
lead to a decision, and that the winning alternative does _not_ have
"einfache Mehrheit". So in my analysis, you cannot reject the decision
of the vote for not having "einfache Mehrheit", much less for not
having "absolute Mehrheit" (absolute majority), which is what I
understand by your "only 3 approvals and not 4". (In the vote at
hand, having 6 non-abstaining votes, einfache and absolute Mehrheit
have the same meaning in terms of number of votes).
Please do explain.
In addition: as far as I know two members of the board have a CoI on
this topic. But only one board member abstained from voting (correct
behavior). The second approved the proposal, instead of
abstaining. This could be seen as a violation of his duties as a
member of the board or his loyalty for TDF. Thus his vote had to
been rejected (and not counted in).
If you intend to reject a vote based on this, "could be seen as X" is
not enough. Either you assert it _is_ X, or no consequence can come
out of it. Additionally, rejecting a vote can only happen on the basis
of pre-established formal rules.
You are entitled to think poorly of people that behaved otherwise than
you think is proper, you are entitled to campaign for their not being
reelected, but you cannot exclude their vote other than based on
written rules that predate the vote.
On the subject of conflict of interest, the choice made by the
Statutes is _not_ to exclude "conflict of interest" votes, but to
limit those to _one_ _third_. You may think that is a poor choice, you
certainly can campaign for a *future* change of the statutes on this
point, but you cannot remove votes expressed in accordance with, and
within, the limits of the statutes, and other established rules, as
they stood during the vote.
If CoI votes were to be excluded, why would the composition of the
board be limited to one third from the same company? If CoI votes were
excluded, we can have e.g. 70% (five members out of seven) board
members from the same company, and on each conflict-of-interest vote,
the votes of the five are excluded (or rather, they don't vote), and
the remaining two board members vote among themselves. To me, this is
an indication that the limit of one-third is intended as _another_
solution to the CoI problem than "exclude CoI votes", not cumulative
to it. (Again, it doesn't mean I think it is a good choice.)
More precisely:
Gleichheit der Zahl der für zwei oder mehr zur Wahl stehenden
Alternativen, die in dieser Wahl eine (identische) Stimmenzahl haben
bekommen die höher als die Stimmenzahl von jede andere Alternative
ist, abgegebenen Stimmen.
Equality of the number of votes cast for two or more alternatives
that have gotten a(n) (identical) number of votes in this election
that is higher than the number of votes for any other alternative.
This leaves completely open and unspecified what happens when:
- A0 has 3 votes
- A1 has 2 votes
- A2 has 2 vote (or A2 has 1 vote and A3 has 1 vote)
We don't have "einfache Mehrheit", but we also don't have
"Stimmengleichheit", so
- A0 is not passed
- certainly none of A1, A2 or A3 should pass!
- the "deciding vote" sentence doesn't come into application
So... we have no decision?
I wonder if the intention of the Statutes was not plurality (one of
the possible meanings of "simple majority" in English, according to
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_majority) rather than
"einfache Mehrheit", and it is just a bug in translation / drafting.
This would make more sense, and would make the Statutes more
coherent.
Hi Lionel,
Lionel Élie Mamane wrote:
>> The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat
>> holders without deputies. In order to be quorate, the vote needs to
>> have 1/2 of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4.> as far as I know the statutes doesn't speak about a second vote of
> the Chairperson here. The vote of the Chairperson is only deciding
> in such case.I don't understand what you mean by "only deciding". Clearly, the
statutes (Satzung) intend for the Chairperson (Vorsitzender) or his
Deputy (Stellvertreter)) to act as a tie-break. Else the sentenceIn the event of a tied vote, the chairman, or as a substitute the
vice chairman, has the deciding vote.Bei Stimmengleichheit gibt die Stimme des Vorsitzenden, ersatzweise
seines Stellvertreters den Ausschlag.Is wholly without effect, as it can never have any effect in
practice. Can you please give a scenario where the fact that, in your
interpretation and understanding of the Statutes, the vote of
Chairperson being "deciding" leads to a decision that would not have
been reached without the "deciding" quality of the vote?
Yeah, I believe that was a misunderstanding. The quorum requirements
where clearly met; after that simple majority of those present, plus
tie-breaking rule applies. In a word, no need for a formal 4 votes in
favour.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
They whole coi is pretty technical matter if you ask me.
And there is they difference between etiquette/moral responsibility (they they community feeling represented).
So you might technically be able to vote, but refraining/absence maybe better to prevent becoming a paria within the community
So there might not be a strict legal obligation. So pretty gray area what people can do/not do.
Also there is they question who decides about COI and about they 'sanctioning' of a breach.
1) The Board of Directors prevents possible conflicts of interest within the foundation.
-> Task directed to Board of Directors. Not saying what to do if they BoD internally maybe comprised..
2) It ensures therefore that a maximum of one third of the members of the Board of Directors, the Membership Committee and the Advisory Board are employed at the same firm, organization or entity or one of its affiliate organizations.
A practical rule to prevent coi in the most obvious case
3) It can exclude one member of the body each month until the conflict of interest is eliminated or a new election of the body is initiated.
-> How does to BoD decide if they are themselves comprised?
It looks they statutes assume BoD being the gate keeper not expected to be trouble themselves.
You're right about they 1/3. Except its talking about maximum.. So it could theoretical be lower?
However at some point we land at elections and such. The members did appoint they BoD.
Anyhow, they squabble of coI kind of side-kick. However, people must be aware of they multi-head dilemma.
Which can cause problems. As hard to believe someone has opinion from his company perspective and holding totally different opinion at TDF
It also comes down what TDF represents. Is it in core a code hub/platform, or has it a mission be itself.
So is distribution of a free LibreOffice binary Office Suite to main goal of TDF or code sharing/infra and
they LibreOffice software for free kind of side-kick.
They position of BoD members in a code hub/platform is bit different from a TDF community with own goals and purpose,
which cannibalizing on they market of eco-system partners. There is more air/room to argue more in you're own interest,
if TDF being intended as code/infra hub/platform. . As it's about sharing infra and such. Not about building a competitor.
In that case they coi more or less vanishes from argumentative perspective.
They TDF community might desire something differently, but that's whole different topic/story. Not in line with reality.
It's a all obviously matter of presentation of facts c.q. story telling. Which also includes to whole product/project topic 
They fuzz is created because they project creates a product. And product has market share/ brand (LibreOffice).
So idea gets a hold of product equals project (identifying project based on product). Which entails arguing more from product vision.
This maybe misconceiving the intended purpose of founding fathers.
There are surely more vision flying around in the community compared to what can actually be true. People are simply not on the same page.
This makes communication/decision making really really hard. Especially if you ask input from they community.
We are living in different bubbles (paradigm's/reality's) with totally - contra-dictional - expectations.
Regards,
Telesto
Hello,
on the membership status, this is something definitely up to the membership committee. This is an independent body of TDF, responsible for approval of members and responsible to oversee the BoD, and we all should definitely leave it to them how to handle the situation, and also give them a bit of time to look at the status quo.
Keep in mind the decision on the repository is TEMPORARY, it is not a permanent one.
Florian
Hello,
on the vote count, let me explain the mechanism:
We have three votes in support (Thorsten, Lothar, Cor) and we have three votes not in support (Emiliano, Daniel, Franklin). Michael abstained.
One deputy (Nicolas) is in support, one deputy (Paolo) is not in support. The deputy votes, however, are not counted "technically".
That means we have three votes in favor, three votes not in favor, and one abstention.
As summarized in the vote tally, that means we have a tie. As per § 9 IV of the statutes, in this case, the vote of the chairperson (if they are absent from the vote, which they weren't however, it would be the deputy chairperson) is the deciding one.
That does not mean the chairperson has a second vote - as summarized, the vote is and stays 3 vs. 3. "4" was not mentioned.
As the chairperson, Lothar, voted in favor, this is the vote that is deciding, and as such, the request has been approved.
Florian
For how long is the freeze? The most exact information I could get was "until we figure things out", which appears to be a bit vague.
I attempted reading through the minutes to get a "why" on the freeze. Am I correct in gleaning this was proposed because LOOL isn't maintained/this is viewed as a Collabora-only product?
Hi,
[...]
Keep in mind the decision on the repository is TEMPORARY, it is not a
permanent one.For how long is the freeze? The most exact information I could get was
"until we figure things out", which appears to be a bit vague.
I'm also interested to know the answer to this question.
Cheers,
Ping?
Hi Brett,
Coincidentally finding this question - sorry for the delay.
Guilhem should know I think, but for your reference: our Attic Policy clearly describes how that works.
The first reason indeed, as per policy. The fact that Collabora decided to move online development to a different place, and the reasons behind that, are discussed widely at various places, most recent during the 2023 BoD elections. Clearly that is related to the topic, but not a reason for the decision.
Hope this helps,
Cor