Well known, high contributors were removed

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.

1 Like

Yes, we noticed that.

1 Like

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.

The expulsion from the TDF prevents Thorsten from participating in discussions on tdf-internal.

As for “slander and conspiracy theories”, @thb asked a question, he didn’t make a claim. And the fact that the MC has said essentially nothing on the grounds of expulsion, and refuses to engage regarding this extreme act, makes the question legitimate, even if the answer is negative.

… and at this point I’ll note that no member of the MC has deigned to make a single comment on this thread.

2 Likes

His membership has not been renewed, in my opinion, for very valid reasons. TDF-internal is a mailing list reserved to members but as you can see he can still voice his concerns publicly.

I answered the question.

I referred to actual statements/claims he made such as “violated the statutes & integrity of the foundation again” and “extremely bad style & smacks of despotism” in relation to what to me seems to be a case of slandering of members of the MC.

Indeed, it is highly regrettable that no-one from the MC has replied 12 days after my initial request.

1 Like

I think that is the way in which he says “yes”, @thb :wink:

It is the statutes which determine the criteria for membership/trusteeship renewal, not our opinions. And there is no claim that he has failed to meet this criteria. Moreover - the statutes represent a vision of who gets to be involved with the course of our project; and it is quite outlandish to suggest that Thorsten, and Cor and Gabriel, should be cast out like that.

Back to the formal aspect: Anything other than that is an explusion, not a non-renewal (although TBH expulsion isn’t exactly a thing, technically we have separate terms of 1 year each rather thanc continuous terms.) And an expulsion needs a proper procedure, to protect the organization and the potentially-expelled from arbitrary and injustifiable actions.

As for what Gustavo said in his email - he merely cited some text from the audit report, which:

  1. at worst, bear upon the legitimacy of his being in the BoD, not a TDF trustee.
  2. are findings by an auditor rather than the results of an adjudicative process. Specifically, there was no opportunity for the previous BoD or Thorsten in particular to justify or explain their actions and decisions.
  3. are, in part not presented with an argument or rationale, but as bottom-line statements only.
  4. Except for one major issue, the points brought up in the audits are - vis-a-vis binding law and regulation - errors which require correction, e.g. considering an expense on mediation as inducive to foundation goals. (The internal-political legitimacy of these actions is outside the purview of the audit and there one could level valid criticism at some of these actions; also not nearly at the expulsion level.)
  5. The most major issue is a fundamental structural matter which we were all aware of, and opinions differed about. It was not as if Thorsten, or the previous or earlier BoDs, made inappropriate arrangements behind our backs.

so, even if an expulsion had been proposed, and even if it had been established that Thorsten acted improperly in certain respects, he should still not have been expelled as a trustee.

I am reminded of the recent MC elections. Some of the candidates had published a flowery manifesto, “A commitment to our community”. In it, @stragu , @jonatoni , @andreasma and @marinello - now MC members and deputies - wrote:

  • “We will grow … transparency”
  • “Thank the work of all of you… support all contributors… no matter if you are a volunteer or employed by a company… all of you are important”
  • “We will foster sharing of knowledge so it is openly available”
  • “We will support civic engagement”
  • “We will work together… with the trustees… be in regular touch with our community members”

I found those statements to be vacuous then; I guess I was wrong and they were mostly just false.

The only thing I know for sure, is that neither Thorsten, nor Gabriel, Gábor, Ayhan, or me did have any opportunity to answer questions or provide information.

Although I’ve commented on this before, it is important enough to (again) give relevant information.
The way tenders were conducted was set up over years in a process with all involved, not just (some subset of) the Board. Central: directors associated to companies intending to bid on a tender, exclude themselves from any process around such a tenders.
Forward to the legal statements then, that the Board asked for to see where/how the processes could/should be improved.
From these (the original statement in German as well as the answers to questions) it is clear there are two possible ways advised to award contracts: 1. is by public tendering, and 2. (if 1 is not feasible or …etc) is by getting at least three offerings to compare. For TDF 1 is clearly advised. And… in TDF’s practice 1 has always been used.
This statement also mention that ‘there is a risk that the non-profit status of the foundation will be jeopardized if the existing practice of awarding contracts is maintained’, but this cannot be seen separated from the fact that the statement is partially based on wrong assumptions, namely the assumptions that companies with directors associated to them will have more information about the tenders (which is not the case) and that contracts are awarded only to members of the board of directors or companies closely associated with them (which is not the case either).
So although there is fair ground to argue that the process was above board, all directors, also those associated in any way to ecosystem companies contributing to development, have always supported (and contributed to) the efforts to create an even more clear separation in all the phases of the process (arms length principle), not only the part of the process that takes place in the Board (that body decides and awards).
(NB: although in general I plea for not bringing all information to the trustees (immediately, just let the board do its job), given the status and importance of this discussion, I suggest that all trustees are given access to the statements and the correspondence (Q&A) related to it.)

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.