TDF does not currently have any bylaws (what is in the wiki is archival). The only normative text is the Statutes. They are clear that inducting Trustees is a seperate process to passing judgement on their actions.
While naturally I appreciate all the time you are taking to reply to every message, this is an MC matter and my request for them to verify they are adhering to the Statutes remains.
So - it is entirely possible that this is/was another instance of a bug in the MC tooling - one of these was reported by a friend, and as far as I know was being looked into. My hope is that staff and MC members can together expedite investigation of this confirmed failure - which sounds superficially very much like Bjoern’s experience.
It would be -really- good to have some transparency from the MC on this previous case as well: how is the investigation proceeding? what facts have been determined? what steps are pending to ensure that the tooling behaves as expected?
That’s an archival page, not our community bylaws. And that document is quite contradictory to our current structure (which still has excessive centralization of power).
The MC has given no reason for two of the expulsions, and an invalid reason - in breach of the statutes of course - to the third.
Our statutes demand that a hearing be held before a trustee can be expelled. But the MC did not hold such a hearing, nor did it even contact said members regarding its intent to expel them, or supposed expulsion-worhty charges against them. So, they have done nothing wrong which merits an expulsion, in the sense no process within the TDF has demonstrated any such wrongdoing. This like people who are tried in abstentia and punished - with some not even being told what they’re punished for.
Having received essentially the same explanation from @gbpacheco as @cornouws has - I can safely say that the MC violated statute-mandated due process here.
There’s a certain irony in the fact, that recent actions by the board (denying @cornouws his role as elected MC member), as well as the MC (purging trustees without due process), are making a mockery of the statutes, and the rule of law - while accusing previous board members of comparable transgressions.
could you please provide us with the answer to Florian’s question? I’m also interested to know about the meaning / translation of your sentence.
I tried to translate the term with dict.leo.org and got similar results to those, Florian got with DeepL:
'verbale Beleidigung",
‘Verleumdung’.
I think it’s important most likely also for others to get a clear answer what the meaning of this sentence and especially what the meaning of the term ‘slander’ is in German. I wonder why this answer has not been given during the last two days.
IANAL but “slander” has no specific German legal meaning, so you should not imply one in your translation. If that is not possible, it is not translatable.
As there are other ways than wrongdoing by a trustee (e.g. death, or stepping down like Italo will) to be removed from the trustees, its good to see Paolo understood his statement was overly generic and qualified it as such:
I didn’t ask about a legal translation / meaning, but about the translation into German language. And I think Florian asked the same. I want to understand your sentence and especially the term ‘slander’, you used in that sentence.
It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to give me a translation, thus I could understand your sentence and its meaning (and maybe others too).
Thanks for joining the thread, Andreas, Since you are also an MC deputy, perhaps you can answer my earlierquestions? It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to give me an answer and I know others here would be grateful.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.