Thanks for joining the thread, Andreas, Since you are also an MC deputy, perhaps you can answer my earlier questions? It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to give me an answer and I know others here would be grateful.
Many thanks!
Simon
Thanks for joining the thread, Andreas, Since you are also an MC deputy, perhaps you can answer my earlier questions? It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to give me an answer and I know others here would be grateful.
Many thanks!
Simon
Hi Simon, hi all,
I’m sorry, but I have no permissions to answer your question.
But I think @Sweetshark will be able to give me a translation of his sentence
As I already wrote here I want to understand Björns sentence and especially the term ‘slander’ that he used in that sentence.
I’m looking forward to his answer.
Regards,
Andreas
Hi all,
with this I would like too:
I have not enough time to follow TDF governance with the required depth these days and will stick to occasional code contributions instead.
Best Regards,
Bjoern
Holy @%#&, @Sweetshark ! I’m sorry I didn’t properly follow the entire thread until this point. This is terrible! You’re number 4.
Hi y’all,
since there’s still no answer from the MC on the question which (if any) process was followed here, let me add a little further wrinkle to this sad story:
At least the subset of the MC which was already serving in the previous 2022-2024 term (this includes @gbpacheco ) was well aware, how questionable this exclusion was handled - since they did the same in 2023, causing quite some internal ruckus ([DECISION] Revoke "Legal review of the MC decision" regarding a membership refusal is related).
The fact that apparently a majority of the MC members did not bother (it would have been trivial to hold at least a hearing), and in broad daylight violated the statutes & integrity of the foundation again - is quite revealing.
Best, Thorsten
Hi all,
just coming back once to say, I agree with @thb here: the MC messed
this up on quite a few levels and repeatedly ignored the statutes, which is
quite inexcusable. Especially for those member who had been around in 2023, like @gbpacheco !
This hearing should have been long scheduled with an opportunity for all
interested trustees to join. If a call is causing conflicts for too many
trustees, it could easily be moved by e.g. 1 1/2 days, as this is especially
important to allow all members of the international community to participate. I
am glad Florian repeatedly has helped out with spotting these conflicts, like e.g.
here.
Best, Bjoern
The matter has been indeed evaluated by the current board which came to the conclusion that the previous board’s decision had to be revoked and I personally join in with the apologies to the MC for for what happened:
[DECISION] Revoke "Legal review of the MC decision" regarding a membership refusal - #2 by sophi
I wonder how it is possible that @thb can state that the MC “violated the statutes & integrity of the foundation again” when he couldn’t do it in 2023 so he resorted to other tactics to try to force the MC to change its decision.
Having evaluated the same matter back in 2023 I’m confident that the MC had full authority in relation to the decision of not renewing the affected membership from procedural, statutory and ethical point of view. Having seen the long list of evidence supporting the decision, IMHO, would make a hearing, if it were necessary for renewal decisions, obsolete.
Hi @PaoloVecchi ,
That would be the case if the purpose of a hearing would be to satisfy Paolo on the decision. I do not think that is the case. A hearing would help bring a shared consensus to the Board of Trustees, which seems to be desperately needed right now. As such, it would have a strong purpose.
Best, Bjoern
Hi @PaoloVecchi ,
Was that your personal evaluation? Or was that a legal analysis, that was then later discarded via [DECISION] Revoke "Legal review of the MC decision" regarding a membership refusal - #2 by sophi ?
Not sure I fully understand - are you suggesting that part of the statutes are optional, such as hearings ahead of expulsion decisions? At any rate, if there would be a long list of evidence against some, or all trustees in question - wouldn’t it be appropriate to share that with those under suspicion, and giving them opportunity to comment & explain their side of the story (i.e. a hearing)?
Even if the statutes don’t require such a hearing (which I doubt), I’m rather certain German case law strongly suggests this to be necessary - beyond the fact that it’s extremely bad style & smacks of despotism, to judge people in absence. I’m asking the MC to at least have the courtesy to grant @gmasei (and possibly future renewal cases already in the crosshairs of the MC) a proper hearing - as each individual case will certainly be different.
Best, Thorsten
I’m not sure where you ever read that there has been an expulsion decision.
So first you state that the MC " violated the statutes & integrity of the foundation again" now you accuse the MC of despotism but you fail to bring any evidence supporting your accusations.This to me seems like a case of slander and defamation against members of the MC.
A decision “not to renew” trustee status, for reasons others than failing to meet the statutory criteria for renewal (§10.1.a … 10.1d), is an expulsion.
In my opinion, based also on the 2023 event that mentioned the same logic, your assumption is incorrect.
The statutes aren’t event-based, and they are rather clear; as, I am sure, are binding principles of due process within the German legal system. I don’t value your interpretative opinion much at this point, Paolo, given how you’ve participated in a counter-statutory removal of an MC member, and then went on to claim that the invalid 12-year-old wiki page somehow counts as our “community bylaws”.
And to think you were once complaining about abuse of power at the TDF.
I did complain about a lot of things and rest assure I keep doing it when I see something I think is wrong.
I agreed with your points of view many times and disagreed with you a few times. This is one of those few times where our reading of the statutes and the situation does not coincide.
In summary it reads as if he argues “I’m convinced that the MC is convinced that he is guilty, and therefore doesn’t need to hear and include his opinion, doesn’t have to obey the statutes.”
You can’t win that argument, of course.
Hi,
We could not help but noticing this indeed. Finding substance often was a challenge though.
Best, Bjoern
So, given that you sent your renewal request on Dec 29th, I believe this puts you in a separtae category or “box” than the trustees who were not-renewed/expelled.
Yes, we noticed that.
Hi @PaoloVecchi ,
could you answer the other questions, please? I’m particularly interested in this one:
I’m wondering, since there’s a plurality of members apparently disagreeing with your reading, including some of your fellow directors - who should have exactly the same kind of in-depth information as you do.
Relatedly, since you seem to be speaking for the MC here, arguing their case & defending their decision: ahead of the end-of-quarter MC meeting, has there been any input, collection of “facts” or other direction or influence, from your side or other board members, connected to the cases at hand?
Best, Thorsten
The fact that you led the previous board to unduly trying to influence the MC and created yet another crisis within TDF, does not mean that others would want to do the same.
I’m sure you are noticing that, unlike you did in the past, nobody is censoring you so you are free to express your personal opinion but it would be great if you refrain yourself from slandering people and from coming up with conspiracy theories as they are not aligned with our communication guidelines.