Hi *, just a few thoughts, since I seem to be mentioned in the email. ;)
Paolo Vecchi wrote: > On 05/11/2022 00:04, Stephan Ficht wrote: > > Sorry, Simon, but IMHO I don't think this is the right wording. > > PI and, if there are, resulting CoI's are clearly defined and written > > down in all the paperwork TDF has established and agreed to or in > > binding German laws. > > Not explaining a conflict, IMO, doesn't mean that it does not actually > > exist. Otherwise that would be too trivial. > > I kind of side with Simon in the specific example of the investigation > against me in relation to LOOL. > I think that's a comment where perhaps we can start a constructive discussion upon. Stepping back and looking at the feedback from all corners, over the past year on the topic - it seems that almost all sides are unhappy about the way the CoI policy is applied (to them personally). Using individual frustration as a stepping stone to iterate how we deal with this (instead of fuel to fight) - wouldn't that be desirable? > I found it very odd that our chairman started the investigation > against me while he's the director of a company reselling LOOL's > fork and 3 others, 2 representing the vendor and 1 is his employee, > voted to start the investigation and spent a considerable amount of > time focusing on me without looking at their own position. > But here we are again, using perceived interests as a means to de-legitimize or exclude. > So in a way a CoI could be "weaponised" by dragging on an > investigation for 3/4 months, I don't know when they actually > started it, to censor a director. > Paolo has not been censored, nor excluded. Finally - Paolo Vecchi wrote: > It is a start which helps in refining standard procedures, which are > generally handled by you Stephan, so that all members of the board > follow their fiduciary duties by preparing for the meeting reading > and evaluating the relevant information so that they can also start > sending the list of their personal interests and avoid influencing > the relevant discussions/votes. > I'm glad people seem to generally like this addition to the board meeting boilerplate (I had added the general affiliation update at the start of this term, and the 'state my interests on the agenda' one (after suggestions from Simon), at our Milano in-person meeting). Thanks to Simon, therefore, for interacting constructively with an otherwise sadly over-heated topic. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
