[VOTE] Revert "Rules of procedure changes"

[syntaxerrormmm]

This matter directly concerns procurement and other processes so it is to be considered urgent.

Emiliano and myself are therefore calling for a VOTE to:

1. revoke the “[DECISION] Rules of procedure change”: [DECISION] Rules of procedure change
2. revert the Rules of Procedure to the version prior of that change: Board of Directors Rules of Procedure - The Document Foundation Wiki
3. remove former board members Kendy and Caolan from the internal delegation of responsibilites in Section 3, as already requested by Membership Committee back in December 2022

Having applied point 3. on the restored Section 3 of the Rules of Procedure would read as such:

Section 3. Internal delegation of responsibilities - Internally, the board has decided on the following split of responsibilities:

• Employees & hiring: Thorsten, Paolo, Emiliano
• infrastructure & community: Emiliano
• QA & community - Gabor, Gabriel
• documentation & community: Gabor, Ayhan
• native language projects, translation, localisation & community: Laszlo, Gabor, Ayhan
• certifications and other business development activities: Cor, Laszlo
• licenses and development & releases including schedules & community: Gabriel
• affiliations, e.g. advisory board, peer foundations, politics: Paolo
• marketing, events, communication & design, brands & community: Emiliano, Cor, Laszlo
• assets, finance, taxes: Thorsten, Paolo
• contracts, legal compliance, GDPR, trademarks: Thorsten, Paolo

The vote runs for 72h.

+1

Regards,

[PaoloVecchi]

As the original vote has been deleted I’ll add my vote here.

+1

Paolo

[kingu]

+1 (but I am only a TDF member)

I don’t like the fly-by-night way of arriving at this policy, the short time-frame(s), or votes being deleted.

As far as removing declared responsibility, I have no faith in the current board as a whole to take on any of it, and insofar as already having that responsibility and trying to offload none of it — that additional detail about working groups isn’t needed.

The grouping was a good way to understand who does what work, the makeup of which the board can internally decide to split differently, but still communicate in this open manner.

Edit: The old variant did function before, and I don’t think any new board wants to adopt
a language of “complex matters” and
“paying attention to possible different views among board members”
when it isn’t explained what that means or why it is now needed.

I have seen no explanation of how this new policy works in practice, but I am open to change my vote if a sufficient explanation is provided.