Well known, high contributors were removed

Membership Committee Discuss
#1

Please, I understand that some 3 long term contributors were removed from the trustees. I didn’t personally check if more were affected. So, in the foundation rules we have something that we accepted somebody as a trustee when he/she is verifiable contributing it. (and just as a reminder, I was part of the MC a few years ago):

There is some ongoing discussion in an internal group about the removal of some trustees.

These trustees cannot even read this discussion, and it communicated that they do not understand the reason / message.

Even if these trustees would like to reapply in the next turn, they need to understand, what, if, when they have done wrong.

#2

+1 to your request, Dennis. I was part of the MC for quite a while as well and I am surprised by what has happened.

I note that the only requirements for membership are to “have dedicated more than three months of verifiable time and intellectual work to the foundation’s goals” and then “submitted an application” and “indicated his intention to participate actively … for at least half a year.”

Someone who is already a Trustee demonstrably meets the first requirement, as it was validated by a previous MC, so the only ground I can see to fail to renew an existing member are the absence of an application or the failure to indicate the intention to participate.

Consequently I look forward to some clarification from the current MC on what has happened here.

#3

Hi Dennis,

I’m not sure I understand the scope of your message.

The MC took a decision on which they have full authority to not renew the membership of these contributors, now it’s up to these former trustees to communicate with the MC to see if there has been a mistake or if the MC confirms the decision.

The MC surely has the email addresses of these contributors as the contributors have the email address of the MC so what is the scope of your message?

#4

Hi Simon,

I would agree on the requirements for new members as we presume they will act according to the rules and contribute in a positive way to the community.

Someone that is already a trustee might be an excellent contributor but also behave in very problematic ways. So the bylaws provide the MC with full authority over this:

“Membership may be revoked if a Member is reported to have been aggressive or insulting, or to have exhibited other forms of unacceptable behavior, or to have perpetrated ad hominem attacks or other abuse, via the Foundation’s mailing lists, forums or other resources, or via other means.”

I totally understand that the decision is confidential between the former members and the MC so it’s only with their consent that we will know more about the issues that led to that decision but I trust that the members of the MC evaluated the matter in an objective and impartial way taking in consideration all the elements necessary.

#5

Hi @PaoloVecchi ,

Your selective quote suggesting this to be the only possible cause of a lapsed membership borders on slander.

Mind your manners, please.

Best,

Bjoern

#6

Your comment is suggesting that any other reasons for non renewal by the MC might apply.

Could you tell me which other plausible reasons that might apply to the matter at hand I should have quoted together with the one I quoted?

Ciao

Paolo

#7

Hi @PaoloVecchi,

maybe ask the MC instead for a full list? I have at least two other reasons in mind that might apply (and are likely causes in this set of renewals), but there might be more.

Best,

Bjoern

1 Like
#8

Sorry but you might have missed the context of my reply to Simon which was quoting bits from our statutes in relation to requirements for membership.

I was instead quoting bits from our bylaws in relation to Revocation of Membership as to me seem to contain the most applicable reasons for non renewal:

https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws

Naturally I was only speculating on what reasons it could be and the part I quoted was, in my opinion, the only applicable one. Naturally I might be wrong as I don’t know what other reasons there could be.

I hope this clarifies the misunderstanding.

#9

I note that revocation of membership is a seperate activity according to the Statutes, not part of the induction process. The statutes state in § 10(2):

“After a hearing, the Membership Committee will also decide on expulsion due to conduct in violation of the Articles, or upon request of the Board of Directors or a Board of Trustees member.”

From § 10 it seems clear:

  1. The process of inducting a Trustee depends only on the factors in § 10(1) and there is no power granted to the MC to withhold membership on other grounds, and
  2. The process of exclusion is a seperate process, must be preceded by a hearing and the only grounds for exclusion are “conduct in violation of the Articles” (that is, the Statutes).

I am thus asking the MC to clarify and document that they have in fact followed these rules in all the cases in question.

3 Likes
#10

Hi all,

while I have my suspicions on what happened with some of the other expired members of the board of trustees, I can only reconstruct what happened in my case.

Here is the timeline:

On 2024-12-29 1:08AM, I received the following message from the MC tooling:

Dear Bjoern Michaelsen ,
We received your application for the membership in the board of trustees of The Document Foundation.
Thank you for your engagement and your interest in the governance of the TDF.
Your application will be decided at the end of the quarter, and you will be informed of the result in any case.

Kind Regards,

The Document Foundation Membership Committee

Encouraging, official looking, positive, nice.
Unfortunately, also: wrong, or at least deeply misleading.

Then at the start of 2025 I was silently removed from TDF internal mailing lists.

Note there has been no communication whatsoever between these two events from the MC. Not even a removal from mailing lists was notified, it was just obvious that people were referring to discussions there, while nothing at all was hitting my inbox.

That limbo state persistent until 2025-01-07, when the MC finally posted its meeting minutes of their meeting on 2024-12-27(!) two weeks before. So when the MC tooling cheerfully informed me that my request is being taken care of “at the end of the quarter”, the MC had no such ambitions: In fact, it likely was already back to hiatus on membership renewals for the next 3 months.

Paolo wrote:

No, I dont think so. I think the MC did not even look at the renewal request to this date, despite their tooling strongly suggesting otherwise with a message signed in their name – official TDF imprint and all.

Is this by the letters of the statutes? Apart from the deeply misleading message from MC tooling, probably yes.

OTOH, just imagine this experience for a random new member experiencing this as their first renewal: Do you really wonder why TDF is losing trustees?

tl;dr:

  • there was an renewal request sent before the end of my membership at the end of the year
  • tooling replied suggesting the renewal was on track
  • however, according to statues, the MC wasnt required to even look at the renewal (yet) – despite communication signed in their name strongly suggesting otherwise
  • I was removed from the trustees with no communication except a public forum post two weeks after the fact

So in total this:

  • is mildly embarrassing for me
  • is hugely embarrassing for TDF, its statutes (which led to this fragile process), the MC, the MCs tooling and specifically Paolo, who did not find it beneath himself – despite obvious ignorance of the details – to slander contributors of LibreOffice in a public forum after this abysmal process and communication that makes a gdb debugging session look really ergonomic.

So I only wonder if the other removals have a similar arc …

Best,

Bjoern

1 Like
#11

To not be lost in translation: Are you talking about

  • “slander” in the sense of “Verleumdung”,
  • or “Beleidigung”,
  • or something different?

Both DeepL (DeepL Übersetzer: Der präziseste Übersetzer der Welt) as well as Google (https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=de&text=slander&op=translate) yield both results, so I want to be sure what you refer to.

#12

Hi Simon,

I believe that section 10.1 is mostly describing the Board of Trustees.

Section 10.3 is the relevant section, in relation to the matters being discussed, stating:
“The details of the induction and exclusion from the Board of Trustees shall be regulated by a community by-law from the Board of Directors.”

The bylaws clearly show that the MC as the power and sole authority on matters related to approval and renewal of memberships.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

#13

Hi Bjoern,

from your summary of the events I don’t see if you wrote to the MC recently to ask them for information.

Have you done it?

#14

Move the discussion out of some internal mailing list so that the discussion can be done with the former trustees.

1 Like
#15

Which was never part of the suspect. But the reasons which leads to the decision can surely be communicated, or?

#16

The reasons for the decision have been communicated.

#17

I believe it’s a matter between the former trustees and the MC so I’m not sure why you want to open the discussion in a public channel when you know that the former trustees know very well how to make their voice heard directly or indirectly.

#18

Hi Paolo,

Could you point us to the current bylaws? I always thought we didn’t have any, to this point?

Best, Thorsten

1 Like
#19

Officially we don’t have them but I was pointing at the initial logic and spirit of the statutes that, IMHO, should help in understanding and dealing with this matter.

#20

Let me help with the requests for the reasons the MC gave to push me/others out.
I think these are useful to get the relevant questions listed - of course with reference to our rules, the statutes.

Subject: Re: [tdf-membership] [TDF Membership] Application of Cor Nouws was not approved
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 12:19:18 -0300
From: Gustavo Buzzatti Pacheco gbpacheco@libreoffice.org
Organization: The Document Foundation
To: cno@nouenoff.nl
CC: membershipcommittee@documentfoundation.org

Hi, Cor!

Please confirm if we can use this email for our communication. If you prefer to use a different email, let us know.

The MC reviewed your technical contributions and the management decisions made during the 2022-2024 term of the BoD, as highlighted in the 2022 and 2023 audit reports.

The MC’s conclusions were already shared when the 2023 audit report was published:

The auditor gave only a “modified audit opinion”. This means that the auditor found some problematic items during the audit. (page 4)

The auditor concluded that “there is still the possibility that the foundation’s non-profit status could be revoked”. (page 5)

This “could cast significant doubt on the Foundation’s ability to continue its activities and that constitutes a going risk jeopardising the future of the foundation”. (page 5)

The reason is “the foundation would probably have to make high tax and/or penalty payments if its non-profit status were to be revoked”. (page 5)

The auditor concluded there was a “misuse of funds” in the amount of EUR 20,599.62 (page 4)

The auditor identified as “other offence” that the former board had contracted a new law firm “to provide advice that did not serve the foundations’s statutory purpose” (page 9)

The auditor also referenced the result of the previous audit for the year 2022 on the section “Reference to other circumstances” mentioning issues in tender contracts, and trademark licenses free of charge.

As a result, “may therefore have been a misuse of funds in previous years” (page 6).

This already means that a “final appraisal, whether the continued existence of the foundation could be guaranteed, is not possible” (page 6).

This is related to the potential loss of non-profit status which “would result in additional tax payments and penalties” (page 6).

Given your involvement and responsibility in the decisions that led to the unacceptably serious situation TDF faces today, that can damage the foundation, the MC has decided to not renew your membership.

The situation doesn’t allow another decision by the MC.

Best,
Gustavo

On 27.12.2024 14:16, Cor Nouws wrote:

Dear people,

This mail is a huge surprise!
Can you pls inform me:

  1. what did you do to confirm my contributions to the project?
  2. whom did you contact to validate my application and how many members
    have you contacted to validate it (statues 10.2).
  3. Bugzilla alone shows 300+ contributions from me the past half year;
    and the design mailing list shows that I have participated meetings
    frequently.
  4. Can you please correct the decision?
  5. what is the process to appeal the decision?

Thanks,
Cor

*)
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/buglist.cgi?chfieldfrom=-180d&chfieldto=Now&email2=cno%40nouenoff.nl&emaillongdesc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=cno_comments_last7days&list_id=1823878&product=LibreOffice&query_based_on=cno_comments_last7days&query_format=advanced

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