Well known, high contributors were removed

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.