Hi all,I have the impression that some live in a different reality or simply don't check things before coming up with statements.
On 26/11/2022 13:02, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi all, Paolo Vecchi wrote:On 25/11/2022 14:04, Florian Effenberger wrote:We believe that would do a lot of good for TDF, its mission, and the LibreOffice community at large. It's been taking a long time, so if the board is ready to vote and trusts the team to handle the project, my teammates and I would be more than happy to support these efforts.As pointed out (I believe at considerable length) during the board call on Monday, November 14, this proposal is not ready to vote on.
Monday the 14 you have shown disrespect for the work put on it for several months by several people including Jan.
As agreed at LibOCon we went to the process and the proposal is ready to be voted:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00993.html You got a full explanation that you fully ignored.Your statements look or purposefully misleading or the result of lack of validation of what you say.
All directors also expressed their support for the proposal which, as agreed, has been finalised by both myself and Jan so I'm sure the community is expecting that they follow through with their votes.It is frankly shocking to read this statement. There has been support for the idea in general, but certainly not for this specific version.
It is frankly shocking that we have a chairman so disconnected with reality and that doesn't even check facts before coming out with comments that could influence the voting intentions of other directors.
So you are fully aware that the final version went to our legal counsel, you even popped up with a very peculiar comment to our legal counsel in support of changes that turn out not to me aligned with laws and regulations and as agreed the version that came out of the legal consultation was the version to be voted.
* not ready for vote (Thorsten) * Kendy resigned because no compromise was reachedIt seems you are supporting a false statement without even checking the facts. If you support that then it means you are supporting the fact that he resigned because I tried to convince him that what he wanted was against laws and regulations.
Legal consultations also confirmed that.Your email to our legal counsel has shown that you were interested in getting some very problematic sentences into the document and that's not a behaviour an objective and impartial chairman should have.
* stop here and restart, from a clean slateYou had 9 months to provide your input and you imposed Jan so that we could spend months in reviewing a document that Jan wanted to change completely to satisfy the desires of a member of the ecosystem and then we finally worked to to make it more "balanced" (while I was trying to show him that it had to be also legally sound).
* if quick action is required instead, tender out as contracted work?How about recognising that your understanding of the proposal is way out of date and just vote on it so that we can move on?
Your actions and statements make it look like that you had no intention of having this proposal passing and it makes it look like you intervene on a matter on which you have little understanding about its progress.
Then we also have statements from Cor: * I'm still missing information (Cor) Where were you in the past 9 months and what information? * asked comments from Mike Then you should read the answers we have been provided before complaining.You asked 2 questions. One is obvious to all and I've answered again here in an easier way to read it as you didn't understand or missed the legal advice provided:
I tried in various way to point out that if any third party organisation, being members of the ecosystem or not, want to impose limitations on TDF's employees or other general activities then an employment proposal is not the best place to put that limitation.
The second question has been discussed back in April 2021 and it's marginally linked with potentially serious issues raised in tdf-internal for which I'm still waiting your feedback but they are not related to the proposal.
* what he wrote on relations between TDF and companies * looks very limited in the light of TDFIt's years that you keep saying that even if you are fully aware of laws and regulations.
* and I had expected a negative advice on the text on page 1 * properly created agreement on such limitations nightmare * from legal aspects and organizational wise * very different from contract on properly tendered projectAnd here you confirm that you prefer an easy but legally troublesome sentence in an employment proposal than a clear win-win situation for both parties.
It seems like unfortunately we have a chairman and a director that failed to check the information available and prefer to spend board time and money hoping to get an "easy" way to impose limitations to TDF.
That doesn't look good at all. I hope they will realise that very soon and change their behaviours.
Here's the sentence once again:"Eventual limitations related to tasks, areas, projects or bugs on which the in-house developers should not work, eg. third parties are already engaged with them, shall be regulated through separate agreements and relevant communications between TDF and the third parties."
If third parties do not want to have a clear agreement with TDF then, IMHO, something is wrong.
Last Monday I've made you explicitly aware that it was my intention to send out the vote as we went through all the stages we agreed.Paolo was very clearly aware of that, even more so, since we've got the topic with lots of questions on the Monday call agenda.
I've explained you, once again, where we were with the proposal but you simply didn't bother validating the information provided and you carry on with a false narrative.
Andreas demonstrated that it doesn't take long to check things out and it's all public.
You confirmed the agenda even if you had the knowledge that we are ready to vote and the vote was already out anyway.
Your actions once again confirms your total disregard to facts and agreement and I don't think it's a behaviour suitable for a chairman.
Best, -- Thorsten
Ciao Paolo -- Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
