Well known, high contributors were removed

You are still providing your own opinion for which I cannot find any confirmation in the statutes.

As from the statutes: “Induction into the Board of Trustees is decided by the Membership Committee.”

That is in a section that contains multiple separate statements that stand on their own.

While there are criteria that determine the eligibility for becoming a member, the MC still has the full authority regarding decisions about an application or a renewal. No criteria or limitations have been set in the statutes so in practice the MC can decide not to accept you as a member or not to renew your membership for whatever reason they feel to be valid.

Having a full view of what happened during the past term and having read the MC decision I am still of the opinion that the MC has the authority of denying an application or a renewal and that their decision lists valid grounds for non renewal.

That doesn’t match with the evidence we have.

Directors affiliated with the companies voted in the ESC ranking on their own projects (together with employees/contractors), voted in the ranking on their own projects in the board (together with employees/contractors) and voted to approve each others tenders (joint interest).

The new procurement process put in place by this board aims at creating a level playing field for new comers and finally applies properly the arm’s length principle.

The evidence is that directors in their role as deciding and awarding excused themselves from tenders they had interest in.
Of course we all know that the necessary and unavoidable specific experience of development of the project, leads to involvement of people associated to companies, is one of the relevant aspects inside the ESC, alongside also the following aspects:

  • a max of 1/3 of the seats may be for people associated to one entity (what the rule 8.3 and 8.4 of our statutes are meant for, as you know :wink: );
  • the ESC looks at a wish list of projects, to which anyone can contribute;
  • the wish list for ranking projects, is long enough for maybe a decade or more of development;
  • as a rule tenders were done in public;
  • it is no rule that projects were awarded to companies came up with an idea;
  • finishing a certain development work, usually benefits the full LibreOffice project, and in principle all the users.

Already the previous board voted in the new procurement policy, with extra separation in the early phases of the procurement process. As explained: all directors supported that work.
Suggesting that creating a level playing field for new comers has anything to do with a new policy, is wish thought and not realistic. It is known, as explained in detail multiple times, that it is just very hard and extremely risky for companies to step in just because the very specific technical nature of the project. In the past (and also this is explained earlier…) existing ecosystem companies have even supported newcomers in the efforts to enter LibreOffice development, to try growing the project and the ecosystem. It is not the (old) practice of procurement that makes it hard to start contributing.

Though that is useful to understand my work as director (which some call so terribly bad that in their opinion even hearing my opinion for expulsion would not be needed…), the questions asked here to members of the MC about their decision, are still waiting for an answer by the members of the MC.

No I’m not; §10.1 of the statutes clarifies who qualifies to be a trustee. Indeed, the MC decides on the induction - but what it decides by is those criteria.

[quote=“PaoloVecchi, post:58, topic:12618”]

Authority to take a decision does not mean liberty to take or fail to take it. In contravention to the binding rules. So, a parking monitor has the “full” authority to fine you, but they can only fine you if you failed to park legally or put a coin in the parking meter (or whatever); they can’t fine you because you’re rude, or because you’ve shot somebody, or “for whatever reason they feel to be valid”.

Moreover, with the statutes listing procedures for expulsion - it is quite incredulous that the MC should be able to circumvent those procedures - of proper public discussion and evaluation of the merit of accusation of behavior meriting expulsion - simply by waiting a few months on average for a person’s term to need renewal. And - the trustees have absolutely do not vote for an MC thinking they are imbuing it with that kind of power.

Finally - even by your criteria, which I reject - the MC has not even convened, nor discussed, and thus not decided, on these expulsions. We have the MC session minutes of 2024-12-27; and the matter did not even come up. The email from Gustavo, sent ex-post-facto, does not even - as I read it - presume to justify why Gabriel, Thorsten, or Cor, should be expelled (or “not-renewed”).

But then - you would be hard-pressed to oppose this sort of behavior by the MC, considering you - as a part of the BoD - are guilty of a similar, albeit lesser, abuse of power, in the form of elections tampering and the removal of an elected MC member without BoT authorization. If the MC is to be faulted for their actions, so, mos likely is the BoD; and if you are allowed to ‘off’ someone in disregard the statutes, then why should they not be, as well?

A bit of a deeper dive on this, and to be read alongside @EyalRozenberg response:

Letter and intent of the statutes § 10 are quite clear - there’s only contribution as the gating criteria for membership, plus commitment to continue for at least 6 more months. There’s no wiggle room here - but interestingly the statutes’ translation contain a glaring translation error, which might have contributed to the misreadings: the authoritative German version says, roughly translated:

b.) after non-arbitrary assessment by the Membership Committee, or via confirmation by other trustees, [members] have made non-trivial or not obviously insignificant contributions. A non-exhaustive list includes among others …

For reference, here’s the current translation - you notice the stark semantic difference:

“… have not made trivial or obviously insignificant contributions and the contributions are provable by the arbitrary assessment of the Membership Committee or confirmed by members. These include in a non exhaustive list among other things …”

I do therefore stand by my assessment, that the actions of the MC (even more so the incident in 2023, and of course the case of @gmasei) were arbitrary, and not covered by letter, nor intent of the statutes. The way the original section § 10 (2) is phrased, makes that quite obvious to me, and @EyalRozenberg has explained it with a simile.

Furthermore, I stand by my request towards the MC, to at least grant @gmasei and future cases of non-renewal-for-perceived-infractions a proper hearing, and a process according to § 10 (2). They deserve that courtesy, and I guess we all here also now deserve an answer from the MC on what they plan to do about that - and not just interjections from @PaoloVecchi .

And finally: it appears the current reading of the statutes, and the basis for the MC decision, is based on a non-professional opinion. All that while attempts to seek a legal assessment earlier where thwarted, then altogether cancelled by the current board majority. Which is interesting in its own right, given the clamour of the past few years, when it came to legal questions.

There’s quite a bit more to say on the topic of integrity (vision and intentions of the founders, the mission statement, and the overall idea of what TDF should protect against) - but that’s for another day.

Best, Thorsten

That’s your opinion and once again I cannot see it confirmed by the statutes.

By reading the statutes I summarise my opinion as follows:

10.1 describes the Board of Trustees:
“The Board of Trustees consists of natural persons who belong to another body or:…”

That section provides a non exhaustive list of indicators as a minimum requirement for eligibility.
It does not set any limit on the authority of the MC to decide to refuse applications or renewals for whatever reasons they see fit even if the applicant passes the first test for eligibility.

10.2 actually specifies that the MC decides on applications and renewals without setting any criteria or limits:
“Induction into the Board of Trustees is decided by the Membership Committee.”
As stated previously that sentence, like others in that section, stand on its own and no limitations on the authority of the MC to decide one way or another have been set.

10.2 Confirms that appointments/renewals are “… following the decision of the Membership Committee” so it isn’t a simple box checking exercise. The MC has full authority to decide if an application or renewal should be accepted or not even if it passes the first eligibility test.

12.5 Would be the only place where guidelines could have been set but none have been provided so at present the MC can arbitrarily decide which applications or renewals they want to accept.

I did evaluate the matter in 2023 when the person in question made your same comments, I have re-checked it after the more recent MC’s decisions taking on-board the comments that have been posted and I believe there are no grounds for me to change my opinion.

You’re just repeating your previous arguments. The claim the MC can make arbitrary decisions is quite ludicrous, and contradictory of the goals of the foundation and to its public character. In the context of Israeli jurisprudence (yes, a poor example for certain, especially in these times, but we’re not talking about treatment of Palestinians right now), I would be able to provide you with ample case law and language of actual legislation which such MC behavior contradicts, and demonstrate how, even if explicit wording in the statutes were to allow the MC such a thing, it would simply be considered voided or superseded. Of course I cannot do so for the German case, and the TDF is a German entity; but I am quite certain that the differences between the legal systems are not that extreme; and thus, organs of public bodies, or bodies subject to public law which I am certain our foundation is to a great extent, must meet multiple requirements, procedural and material, which the MC, in such a decision, has not.

On a personal note I’ll say that for a person in a position of power over others to choose to interpret the rights of the governed in a narrowing manner, and the privileges of the governing in an expansive manner, is an indication of a temperament inappropriate for their position.

1 Like

As you did but at least I gave you a clear explanation of why my opinion differs from yours.

If you use the statutes to support your opinion then you should be able to point out where you found that support.

As we all know it would be an abuse of position/power for me as a director, as for the whole board, to intervene in matters where the MC has sole authority. Even if you convinced me to change my opinion about the MC’s decision there would be nothing I could do about it.

I meant, first and foremost, your part in the MC elections manipulation. And beyond this, your opinion here, not a BoD action. It was inappropriate - AFAICT - for the previous BoD to intervene institutionally in the MC’s non-renewal of a membersip; but an expression of opinion, as trustees or just people, is appropriate and called for.

I guess you mean the decision that was necessary to avoid violating the statutes which has been thoroughly explained by the board in terms of the need to take the decision and the processes used.

What’s wrong with my opinion?

I’m pleased to see that we agree at least on this and I clearly explained to you why I considered those actions illegitimate and unethical then and why the board or directors cannot do the same now.

As we can all see trustees and people are expressing their own opinions without being censored anymore and we also see a level of transparency even in relation to legal issues that has never been allowed before.

True that at the time, when this board took the initiative to challenge the suitability of one of the candidate for the MC, a lot of the information that you have now was not available.

Since then also another audit should have confirmed to you that the board decision was correct, done following the statutes and within the only phase available for challenging a candidate during the MC elections.

Now it would be great if you reviewed your opinions with the facts and evidence you have available and contribute with ideas that help in stopping the accumulation of issues that led to having to take difficult decisions.

Hi all,

purely based on hearsay and without checking back with legal advise I assumed that resigning from the TDF Board of Trustees also voids my support for complaints I made. It dawns on me that this might not be the case or – at least not universally. So please allow me to explicitly state that I withdraw my support for any complaint against TDF bodies – explicitly including those about the election of the current MC.

Best Regards,

Bjoern

This doesn’t matter at all. The MC is not reacting at all. The statues are ignored, the trustees are uninformed about the status. They had “a month” for checking and nothing was posted.

1 Like

Indeed, you are right Dennis. Lets put the question of complaints aside for now.

@webmink asked in a different thread that effective the only thing possibly missing is the commitment to contribute in the following 6 months. In which case, I am fully committed to do so. Maybe that helps the MC to come to a statement?

Best Regards,

Bjoern

HI @EyalRozenberg ,

I’m sorry but I missed this statement at the time -

To the best of my memory, the previous board did not intervene institutionally. A number of directors asked the MC (most of them stating, that they were asking in their capacity as trustees) about the incident - simply because they were the only ones in the know at the time.

Or are you referring to the request for legal advise? That was also carefully & neutrally worded, seeking input on whether, in the informed opinion of counsel, the MC followed due process as outlined in the statutes. I believe that was as valid a question to ask back then, as it is today.

Best, Thorsten

The number of people that got involved in the matter “in their capacity as trustees” was exactly 1 (one) and that was yourself.

It’s only nearly 3 months after your involvement as both a trustee, putting the board in copy and putting pressure on the MC, and a director that [REDACTED] sent a letter to the board asking to intervene.

At that point you decided that the board would be formally involved despite the fact that you already shared the confidential emails, between [REDACTED] and the MC, showing that [REDACTED] already received full and clear explanation of why the membership was not renewed.

The board should have replied to [REDACTED] that there was nothing it could have and should have done and closed the matter.

You choose instead to carry on and led the majority of the board to create an institutional crisis:

If that was a valid question for which you really wanted an answer then you could have confirmed the meeting with the legal counsel when he asked you about it twice but you didn’t.

At the end you got what you wanted and the unnecessary legal review you started has been left there hanging.

The current board has evaluated the situation and revoked that vote. I fully support the apologies made by Sophie to the MC:

As asked previously, please do check your facts before making incorrect statements that might mislead the community.

Hi @PaoloVecchi ,

Thx, it’s good to have this confirmed, that I never tried using board authority when asking the MC about that matter.

and

That appears a convenient framing, of an action that was clearly meant to be a neutral third-party analysis (where a trustee, and part of the previous MC fundamentally disagreed). Not too different from an audit, come to think of it.

I cannot tell why parts of the old MC felt undue pressure because of that - but what seems obvious, is that the current MC appears encouraged to act on the same mistaken reading of the statutes, now that the board has revoked the request for an analysis.

What then to me leads to this adding to the actual institutional crisis at TDF, which are:

  • election-meddling by the board
  • expulsion of long-standing contributors without due process
  • outright ignoring a formal complaint against the board, by now for two and a half months (I may remind the MC, that the statute-mandated response time in this case is a maximum of one month)

Best, Thorsten

2 Likes

It would have been the case if you limited yourself to 1 email and you accepted the fact that the board had no power to influence the MC. Unfortunately that was not the case.

The many emails you sent to the MC with the board in copy, after unsuccessfully trying to get them to change the decision on your own, shows that you wanted to use your position and the board to put pressure on the MC.

Sending out a vote to give a libreoffice.org to a non member shows that you abused your position.

Getting that non member involved in a matter that had already been solved by our legal team, some could think it was a way to make up a contribution usable for a new membership application, shows that you abused your position.

It clearly wasn’t. In your second email with the whole board in copy, where you attached the answer received by the MC that [REDACTED] forwarded to you, and you answered “ok, so that probably answers my earlier question, wrt the basis of that decision.” that should have put an end to the discussion.

Instead you carried on even after you have been asked by the MC to stop putting pressure on them to try to change their decision.

Why didn’t you accept the 2 invitation from our legal counsel to to complete it?
If you were so sure that your actions were not an abuse of your position why did you refuse to add to the request to our legal counsel also an evaluation of your actions as a director and chairperson?

The irresponsible candidacy of that former member had to be challenged by the board as extensively explained. The members received, in the internal mailing list, information showing also how he was involved, with you and other members of the previous board, in actions that were damaging for TDF and the community.

There is no doubt that the former members contributed substantially to the LibreOffice project but they have also repeatedly damaged TDF and the community through their actions as members of the board despite warnings and legal advice recommending otherwise.

The fact that someone contributed a lot to a project could be a mitigating factor when the person makes a mistake and tries his/her best to fix it and avoids to do it again.

When instead a person keeps making “mistakes” expecting that his/her position as known contributor will shield him/her from consequences then that is an abusive behaviour that cannot be accepted and tolerated regardless of the amount of contributions provided.

In my opinion a non renewal is a very mild consequence for their actions and further steps will be needed to solve the damages they caused.

Ciao

Paolo

Hi @PaoloVecchi ,

It is on purpose, that serious consequences (at TDF, as well as in real life) tend to be guarded by additional process - it is astonishing to read from you @PaoloVecchi - who has strongly lobbied for compliance before - that due process does not need to be followed here.

There is something more sinister at play though, which I find deeply troubling: apparently judgement was passed summarily for an entire group, and then communicated, repeatedly, by you @PaoloVecchi - so I will attribute this judgement, and pushing for consequences to you, given that the MC appears fully absent.

This judgement included @gmasei who was a deputy director with no real power, and just one board term - how statements like the ones you made above (even if they were true) can possibly apply here, is beyond me. So what happens, it appears, is the very definition of abuse of power, retaliation against people who disagreed with you, and violation of due process requirements (let alone separation of powers - it’s really not the board’s business to push for this).

Best, Thorsten

Thanks for recognising that. I’m pleased to say that the current board is working hard on it as it is working hard to sort out the many issues that have been left unsolved or created by the majority of the previous board.

Thanks for attributing it to me but I’m just one of the many in this board and the MC that are taking legal statements and audits seriously and we are all working hard to bring TDF back to compliance.

In relation to other statements I would recommend you to read the motivations and extensive explanations provided so that you will avoid making incorrect and misleading statements.

Ciao

Paolo