Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Paolo Vecchi]

Hi all,

On 07/11/2022 10:53, Thorsten Behrens wrote:

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).
Actually I'm not unhappy not about the investigation itself. If it were 
well researched, used for events happened since the implementation of 
the policy and was discussed openly in public as requested then I'd have 
no issues with it.


I complained about non declaration of personal interests and influences 
from potentially conflicted members of the board several times as others 
did also on board-discuss. Potentially conflicted members of the board 
just dismissed my complaints.


eg. 
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00745.html


Some might have had the feeling that the investigation against me was 
more a retaliatory action for my requests to look at what seemed to me 
obvious PIs than anything else.


I anyway welcome the investigation as at least it started the discussion.


  Using
individual frustration as a stepping stone to iterate how we deal with
this (instead of fuel to fight) - wouldn't that be desirable?
It would be desirable and that's why I proposed the adoption of a clear 
text listing our Fiduciary Duties to make it even easier for directors 
to recognise what they should do while performing their duties:


https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/FZKYSkyPZZfty5L

Maybe there is something there that could help in clarifying things?




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.
If my company were a reseller of LOOL's fork then I would need to 
abstain from influencing decisions around LOOL as, IMHO, it would give 
out the impression that my decisions wouldn't be completely impartial.





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.
At the last board meeting I've also stated that I couldn't talk about 
LOOL's future as I was being investigated about it and I recommended to 
the board not to talk about it until personal interests have been 
properly declared and evaluated.


Fortunately at LibOCon we didn't have to take decisions about LOOL or I 
would have had to leave the room and vote abstain if a vote was required.


Anyway it's nearly 2 months I'm waiting for a decision from the board 
about the investigation so I hope there will be a deliberation soon so 
we start clarifying my position and start looking at the position of 
other directors.



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.
Odd to learn now that all the requests for clear declarations from 
fellow members of the board have been ignored but accepted when the 
suggestion comes from outside the board.



Cheers,

-- 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

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

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

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Paolo Vecchi]

Hi Stephan,

thank you for your comments.

It's good to see that we have staff members that are actively 
participating in discussion to help improving processes within TDF.


On 05/11/2022 00:04, Stephan Ficht wrote:

Hi Simon,

Am 31.10.22 um 01:38 schrieb Simon Phipps:
I would suggest you "look down the telescope the other way" and ask 
what the Board's actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about 
the existence of a CoI.
With regard to PI/CoI (personal interest / conflict of interest) it's 
an interesting approach to "abuse" a telescope that is originally 
designed to see things more clearly.
Being a child I had fun to see things far away "having looked down the 
telescope the other way round". Nowadays I prefer to use it the right 
way in order to get the macro effect without neglecting the whole 
picture.


What a telescope can't help in seeing, as Simon said, is the lack of 
some actions that finally started appearing since a couple of BoD 
meeting with a basic declaration of personal interests.


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.





weaponising CoI

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 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.


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.


It seems clear that the process needs to be improved so that personal 
interests that are obvious are declared straight away and in case of 
doubts investigations should not last longer than a month unless the 
reasons for the delay are clear and documented.


Someone in the past said that they always acted as if they had a CoI 
Policy already but it seems we needed to implement an actual one to get 
the right processes in place. I'm sure all directors will slowly adjust 
to the new procedures as they are eager to show they want to remove any 
doubts about potential conflicts of interest.


Feel free to suggest any improvements that will help streamlining the 
processes.




Cheers
Stephan


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

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Hi Simon,

Am 31.10.22 um 01:38 schrieb Simon Phipps:
I would suggest you "look down the telescope the other way" and ask what 
the Board's actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the 
existence of a CoI.
With regard to PI/CoI (personal interest / conflict of interest) it's an 
interesting approach to "abuse" a telescope that is originally designed 
to see things more clearly.
Being a child I had fun to see things far away "having looked down the 
telescope the other way round". Nowadays I prefer to use it the right 
way in order to get the macro effect without neglecting the whole picture.



weaponising CoI

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.


Cheers
Stephan

--
Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees
Affiliation: The Document Foundation

The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[sophi]

Hi Simon,
Le 31/10/2022 à 12:21, Simon Phipps a écrit :

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:06 AM sophi  wrote:


  Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.



Are all TDF Trustees on board-discuss then? Do you have statistics to
clarify this please?


Did I say that all TDF members are on board-discuss?


Forcing divisive discussions to be held in public chills contributions from
people whose employers (not necessarily LibreOffice-related) prefer staff
to avoid public disputes and advantages those who have no such concerns.
That's why it is a smart policy to keep "family business inside the family"
and conduct Trustee business on a Trustee mailing list.

The best solution would be to scrap the tdf-internal list and have these
discussions on tdf-membership where everyone with responsibility for the
eventual outcome is subscribed but where the media cannot abuse their
contributions and future employers can't find it in searches.


I don't get that so I won't discuss it, assuming my words is part of my 
open source engagement too.


Cheers,
Sophie

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Andreas Mantke]

Hi Michael, all,

Am 31.10.22 um 12:07 schrieb Michael Stahl:

hi Andreas,

On 29.10.22 22:07, Andreas Mantke wrote:

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not
approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.


but why do you stop at this step?

if i count correctly, of the directors that approved various versions
of the CoI policy, a majority of them either have subsequently
restricted their actions due to potential CoI, or there is an
investigation for potentially having a CoI ongoing at the moment.


you refer to the decision that elaborate on the statutes of TDF and the
general regulations for foundations and entities. In contrast the
decision about the attic process was not forced by the statutes or the
general regulations but by an interest to block the further development
of LOOL inside the LibreOffice project. This decision was done by three
members with a (potential?) CoI on just this topic.

Thus you compare apples with oranges here.

And to add: if TDF wouldn't have a CoI policy the statutes and the
general regulations for foundations and entities would lead to the same
result. The attic policy looks general but was created only on purpose
of LOOL/Collabora Online. Thus three board members has an personal
(financial) interest, which conflicts with TDF's one. Because of their
special fiduciary duty this board members had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on the attic topic.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:06 AM sophi  wrote:

>  Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.
>

Are all TDF Trustees on board-discuss then? Do you have statistics to
clarify this please?

Forcing divisive discussions to be held in public chills contributions from
people whose employers (not necessarily LibreOffice-related) prefer staff
to avoid public disputes and advantages those who have no such concerns.
That's why it is a smart policy to keep "family business inside the family"
and conduct Trustee business on a Trustee mailing list.

The best solution would be to scrap the tdf-internal list and have these
discussions on tdf-membership where everyone with responsibility for the
eventual outcome is subscribed but where the media cannot abuse their
contributions and future employers can't find it in searches.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Michael Stahl]

hi Andreas,

On 29.10.22 22:07, Andreas Mantke wrote:

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.


but why do you stop at this step?

if i count correctly, of the directors that approved various versions of 
the CoI policy, a majority of them either have subsequently restricted 
their actions due to potential CoI, or there is an investigation for 
potentially having a CoI ongoing at the moment.


following your line of argument that the policy applies to decisions 
that lead to decisions where the policy applies, it's clear that none of 
them should have participated in discussing or voting on the CoI policy, 
since all of them have an obvious CoI with the CoI policy because it 
could potentially restrict their actions, and therefore the CoI policy 
has never been properly accepted for lack of quorum (4 directors).


[board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.2 of the CoI policy
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05506.html

of 6 votes, 4 were by directors with potential CoI

[board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss%40documentfoundation.org/msg05130.html

of 5 votes, 3 were by directors with potential CoI

in both cases, only 2 directors who don't have an interest in the CoI 
policy participated in the vote.


best regards,
 michael

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[sophi]

Hi all,
Le 31/10/2022 à 11:33, Andreas Mantke a écrit :

Hi,

Am 31.10.22 um 01:18 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/10/2022 22:07:

[...]>

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.


It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?


I agree with Andreas that this discussion should be kept public. I find 
this ping pong between private and public lists very problematic for the 
transparency and the clarity of the debate. Plus, not all TDF members 
are on tdf-internal.


Cheers
Sophie


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Andreas Mantke]

Hi,

Am 31.10.22 um 01:18 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Hi,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/10/2022 22:07:


7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.


It is interesting that this topic pops up again...

and also very interesting that the reply is again a side track. Some
would also say trying to lay a smoke-screen

At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic,
the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic
policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development
on LOOL:
no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.


It is not about code sanity, but about blocking the development of LOOL
under the TDF umbrella and within LibreOffice resources. And if you look
at the Collabora staff website
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/) you'll find out, that the
sales team member of this ecosystem company, which sells the LibreOffice
Online fork 'Collabora Online, states here that he has no potential
personal interest in this topic.

This statement is a complete misunderstanding of the TDF policy and the
regulations for members of a board of a legal entity.


Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in
working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb,
I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".


It's a shame that a member of the board of a Free Software entity refer
to develop OSS software on a proprietary resource and close the the
doors of the entity.



Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.


It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Hi Thorsten,

Am 31.10.22 um 10:48 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

Stephan Ficht wrote:

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?


I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Ok. So the information was shared on board-discuss@

Thanks
Stephan

--
Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Stephan,

Stephan Ficht wrote:
> Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
> that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?
> 
I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Best,

-- Thorsten


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Hi Thorsten,

My answer to the first part below of your email (2022-10-30/14:57) 
related to my post on board-discuss@ ((2022-10-30/12:24):


Am 30.10.22 um 14:57 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:

Am 30.10.22 um 12:24 Stephan Ficht wrote:

@Andreas: I think your point of view is an interesting and logical way to
look at this point.

I am asking to know each director's opinion on this. Then we can discuss it
and everyone can form an informed opinion.

What is your opinion, Thorsten?


Ich halte es nicht für klug (und nicht in TDFs Interesse), diese
Diskussion öffentlich zu führen. Andreas ist mittlerweile Member, wir
können das also problemlos auf tdf-internal schieben.

===
browser translated:

I don't think it's wise (or in TDF's interest) to have this discussion public. 
Andreas is now a member, so we can easily move this to tdf-internal.


I don't think it's wise (or in TDF's interest) to have this discussion public. 

end
===
Why please?
Who defines TDF's interest?
Where one can find it? German laws? TDF-manifesto? TDF-statutes?, 
TDF-policies, others?


===
browser translated:

Andreas is now a member, so we can easily move this to tdf-internal.

end
===
Independent of the sender I replied to a post on board-discuss@ in my 
capacity as member of the Board of Trustees or, at least, as someone 
expressing his opinion or asking a question on a public mailing list topic.
Why do you want to exclude those who will then no longer be able to 
follow this thread on tdf-internal?
Isn't board-discuss@ destinated to discuss with the TDF's board to 
involve the wider community and interested people?



Könntest Du bitte Deine Frage dort neu stellen?

===
browser translated:

Could you please re-post your question there?

end
===
Please let me wait for your answers first.

Sorry
Stephan

--
Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees
Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint












--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Good morning Thorsten,

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or 
information that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? 
on Oct 31?


Cheers
Stephan


Am 28.10.22 um 18:57 schrieb Simon Phipps:
Is the paper from Italo mentioned for discussion in Item 6 available for 
trustees to review as well please?


Thanks

Simon

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:05 PM Stephan Ficht 
> wrote:


Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard


For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221031T18 


## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
      Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
      questions to the board and about TDF

2. Status Report: Strategy planning (Cor Nouws, 5 mins)

      * status update and next steps
      * based on the Milano strategy workshop
      * materials:
https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129829


3. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian
      Effenberger, 5 mins)

      Status report and various ongoing discussions
      * Cloph to work out a proposal, which update regime with roughly
        one year of updates (regardless of purchasing time) could work
      * one year of updates seems reasonable
      * vouchers do not scale, creating internal, staggered releases on
        the stores might do (to group users together, so timings for EOL
        can be ~independent from purchasing dates)

5. Discuss: OSI initiative on FLOSS in app stores (Thorsten, Simon, 10
      mins)

      * OSI is currently asking for input & experience from FLOSS
        projects
      * agree on who does what til when

6. Vote, Discuss: Get some lobbying activity started in Brussels
      (Thorsten, Italo, 5 mins)

      * Italo made a proposal to the board
      * motion: approve this year's travel expenses from the (still
        plentiful) marketing budget

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

      * ESC provided evaluation
      * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html 

      * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
        attic for the moment
      * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html 

?

### Private Part

8. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
      Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

9. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)
      Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

10. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten
Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
       Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

       * Second quarter for the new board is up, so let's hear reports
         from the various oversight groups.

11. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
       Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up
after
       sending the agenda


-- 
Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant

Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org

The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to:

board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org

Problems?
https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 

Posting guidelines + more:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette

List archive:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/

Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Stephan!

OK, one more reply (against my better judgement!)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 7:52 PM Stephan Ficht <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> Am 30.10.22 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Phipps:
> > In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong
> > conclusions.
> Everyone can read there [1]:
> "A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a
> Conflict of Interest when it *can* result in improper conduct."
>
> My understanding of the word *can* is here: The possibility alone is
> sufficient.
>

I do not read it that way. In that sentence "tends" and "can" go together
and inform us the writer of that phrase felt that personal interest and CoI
were usually the same thing but not always, without giving us any tools to
understand when. The document promises to help us determine which personal
interests conflict with TDF's interests, and the only place a tool for that
exists is in Section 5.3. So the best approach is still to regard 5.3 as
definitive.



> > It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
> > interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board
> > has determined that it is based on the evidence.
> Everyone can read there[1]:
> "The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of
> Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action."
>
> My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing
> Conflict of Interest, right?
>

I would not say so, no - the text says "if" not "that", and that conclusion
is not appropriate unless and until a CoI is determined by the Board.

I would suggest you "look down the telescope the other way" and ask what
the Board's actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the
existence of a CoI. Every director is well aware both of the policy and of
every other director's declared interests so it seems safe to use this as
an indicator. Section 5.3 indicates that if the Board has received notice
and neither taken action nor determined the personal interests rise to the
level of a CoI then there is no CoI.


> most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default
> > that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared
> > interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a
> > harmful way.
> Great if that works out.


It has to be worth trying. Endlessly weaponising CoI to exclude TDF's key
contributors is getting tiresome.



>  And to consider what is written there, rather than interpretation.


There are unfortunately no safe direct readings of this document so
interpretation is inevitable. Claiming any reading is plainly correct is
itself an interpretive act.

Cheers

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Cor Nouws]

Hi,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 29/10/2022 22:07:


7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.


It is interesting that this topic pops up again...
At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic, the 
process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic policy 
*). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development on LOOL:

no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.
Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in 
working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb, I 
would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".


Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is 
open to all members. I'll continue there.


Cheers,
Cor

*) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic

--
Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

GPD key ID: 0xB13480A6 - 591A 30A7 36A0 CE3C 3D28  A038 E49D 7365 B134 80A6
mobile  : +31 (0)6 25 20 7001
skype   : cornouws
blog: cor4office-nl.blogspot.com
jabber  : cor4off...@jabber.org


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Hi Simon,

Am 30.10.22 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Phipps:
In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong 
conclusions. 

Everyone can read there [1]:
"A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a 
Conflict of Interest when it *can* result in improper conduct."


My understanding of the word *can* is here: The possibility alone is 
sufficient.


It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal 
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board 
has determined that it is based on the evidence.

Everyone can read there[1]:
"The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of 
Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action."


My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing 
Conflict of Interest, right?



Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust

Indeed and very true. I am all with you.


most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default
that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared 
interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a 
harmful way.

Great if that works out.


I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow that practice
I think thus following the actual Conflict of Interest Policy (BoD)[1] 
is a good starting point. And to consider what is written there, rather 
than interpretation.


Best
Stephan

[1] 
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf


--
Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees
Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint






--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Andreas Mantke]

Hi all, hi Simon,

and also sorry for another post to correct misleading statements.

Am 30.10.22 um 18:51 schrieb Simon Phipps:

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:40 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.


The TDF policy

was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a
full review, and has several places where clearer language would be
welcome. The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum
of potential personal interests that affect an open source community. 
In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the
wrong conclusions.  I'll assume those are the reasons why you have
misunderstood it, rather than implying you have not read it.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the
Board has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware
that the Board has determined that any of the five people you keep
accusing of a breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their
personal interests with TDF's interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by
default that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a
declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the
organisation in a harmful way. I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow
that practice and leave accusations of breach of trust as a
rare exception.


it looks like you are not aware of the rules which applies to any
director of a foundation under German law like TDF. If a director has
especially a personal financial or business interest on a topic he could
not act on both sides of the same table. Because it is not possible to
throw away his personal interest she/he had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on TDF side. She/he _has_ a (at least) potential CoI
on that topic and thus is not allowed to act on the side of the foundation.

If she/he will not follow this rule it's a breach of the TDF statutes,
the TDF CoI policy and also of the general regulations.

It's not important how processes are done on organizations you served on
the board, but how things had to be handled within the TDF statutes and
the regulations, which apply for TDF' s place of business.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:40 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
> are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.
>

The TDF policy

was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a full
review, and has several places where clearer language would be welcome.
The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum of potential personal
interests that affect an open source community.  In particular the wording
of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong conclusions.  I'll assume
those are the reasons why you have misunderstood it, rather than implying
you have not read it.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board
has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware that the
Board has determined that any of the five people you keep accusing of a
breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their personal interests with
TDF's interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation and
mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default that
directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared interest of
theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a harmful way. I
strongly suggest TDF's Board follow that practice and leave accusations of
breach of trust as a rare exception.

Regards

Simon
-- 
*S**imon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Andreas Mantke]

Hi all, hi Simon,

Am 30.10.22 um 13:16 schrieb Simon Phipps:

(...)

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that
it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the
meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.


This is not so; all of these five directors are free to participate if
they believe they should and there is no breach of trust on their
part. *Having an interest to declare is not the same as having a
/conflict/ of interest* no matter how often the implication is made
that having an interest is disqualifying. If all of these directors
believe their employers' interests - which are clearly well understood
- can be held in balance with their personal elected role at TDF then
the onus is on an accuser to demonstrate why it is impossible for them
to balance their work life and private life in this case.


sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF. And if you would have
had a look into the document from the European Commision that was linked
by Paolo, you would know that you look onto this topic is not
appropriate for member states of the European Union.

It has not be proofed that a member of the board _has_ a CoI. It's
sufficient that he may have a CoI (potential). And if your company is
involved with the development and marketing/sale of Collabora Online you
have at least a potential CoI within LOOL and its future. And I'm being
very reluctant with speaking only of a potential CoI this time. Others
wouldn't formulate that reluctant.



So far I have not seen any attempt by anyone to demonstrate why all
these five directors are in breach of trust over the well-understood
interests. I suggest you do so before you repeat calls to exclude
elected directors from TDF's business.


Maybe you look into the European Commission document, linked by Paolo in
an earlier post, you'd get the complete knowledge on the topic within
countries of the European Union, like the one of TDF's home.

Regards,
Andreas

--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Simon Phipps]

Hi Andreas, all.

So sorry to have to keep repeating this, but the error it relates to is
still being repeated without regard to my earlier explanations.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 9:07 PM Andreas Mantke  wrote:

> If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
> board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
> are left.
>

Independently of any investigation, the owner and director of Omnis Cloud
Sarl clearly has an interest in this topic as the company offers hosting of
NextCloud and OwnCloud for clients according to
https://omniscloud.eu/open-source-platforms/ and may be a partner of the
related companies according to https://omniscloud.eu/ - whether it creates
a conflict with his role at TDF is a matter for him to decide.


> If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
> necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
> The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
> and could not decide on this topic.
>

This is not so; all of these five directors are free to participate if they
believe they should and there is no breach of trust on their part. *Having
an interest to declare is not the same as having a conflict of interest* no
matter how often the implication is made that having an interest is
disqualifying. If all of these directors believe their employers' interests
- which are clearly well understood - can be held in balance with their
personal elected role at TDF then the onus is on an accuser to demonstrate
why it is impossible for them to balance their work life and private life
in this case.

So far I have not seen any attempt by anyone to demonstrate why all these
five directors are in breach of trust over the well-understood interests. I
suggest you do so before you repeat calls to exclude elected directors from
TDF's business.

Regards

Simon
-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*TDF Trustee*

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Hi Andreas, all,
dear board members,

@Andreas: I think your point of view is an interesting and logical way 
to look at this point.


I am asking to know each director's opinion on this. Then we can discuss 
it and everyone can form an informed opinion.



Am 29.10.22 um 22:07 schrieb Andreas Mantke:

Am 28.10.22 um 17:05 schrieb Stephan Ficht:

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221031T18


## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

    * ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

    * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
  attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
?


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/)
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.



Cheers
Stephan

--
Stephan Ficht, Member of the Board of Trustees
Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Paolo Vecchi]

Hi Andreas,

thank you for you valuable feedback.

As I've been under investigation for potential personal interests on 
LOOL, by potentially conflicted members of the board, for a few months I 
will refrain from influencing the discussion and until the investigation 
is over to vote on any decision.


Just a reminder of a summary of what happened at the time as 
unfortunately we experienced once again the presentation of a one sided 
version of the LOOL discussion during LibOCon:


https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00029.html

On 29/10/2022 22:07, Andreas Mantke wrote:

Hi all,

Am 28.10.22 um 17:05 schrieb Stephan Ficht:

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221031T18 




## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

    * ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html 



    * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
  attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html 


?


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

2 until the investigation against me reached its conclusion.


(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/) 


(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not 
approved.


Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.


That would be my take but it seems the majority of the board disagrees.



Regards,
Andreas



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


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Andreas Mantke]

Hi all,

Am 28.10.22 um 17:05 schrieb Stephan Ficht:

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221031T18


## AGENDA:

### Public Part
(...)
7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

    * ESC provided evaluation
    * discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html

    * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
  attic for the moment
    * auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
?


because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

(https://blog.allotropia.de/2021/08/25/allotropia-and-collabora-announce-partnership/)
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/)
(https://www.allotropia.de/ ; section team)

If board members (with a CoI themselves on this topic) think, another
board member has a CoI on this topic too, then only two board members
are left.

If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that it is
necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the meeting.
The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
and could not decide on this topic.

If the at least four members with a direct link to the product Collabora
Online didn't leave the meeting before this topic or/and vote on this
topic this vote is invalid. And such a behavior of this board members
would be a violation of the foundation rules and a damage of the
foundation and its reputation in public (with very likely consequences
in relation to attraction of volunteers in any areas and the stream of
donations).

And such a behavior would plasticize that this members follow their own
financial and personal interests first, but not the ones of TDF. A
behavior like this is not in accordance with the special fiduciary duty
of board members.

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

Regards,
Andreas


--
## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:http://www.amantke.de/blog


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Re: [board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Simon Phipps]

Is the paper from Italo mentioned for discussion in Item 6 available for
trustees to review as well please?

Thanks

Simon

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 4:05 PM Stephan Ficht <
stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org> wrote:

> Dear Community,
>
> find below the agenda for our
>
> TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
> on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
> https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard
>
> For time zone conversion, see e.g.
>
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221031T18
>
> ## AGENDA:
>
> ### Public Part
>
> 1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
>  Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
>  questions to the board and about TDF
>
> 2. Status Report: Strategy planning (Cor Nouws, 5 mins)
>
>  * status update and next steps
>  * based on the Milano strategy workshop
>  * materials: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129829
>
> 3. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian
>  Effenberger, 5 mins)
>
>  Status report and various ongoing discussions
>  * Cloph to work out a proposal, which update regime with roughly
>one year of updates (regardless of purchasing time) could work
>  * one year of updates seems reasonable
>  * vouchers do not scale, creating internal, staggered releases on
>the stores might do (to group users together, so timings for EOL
>can be ~independent from purchasing dates)
>
> 5. Discuss: OSI initiative on FLOSS in app stores (Thorsten, Simon, 10
>  mins)
>
>  * OSI is currently asking for input & experience from FLOSS
>projects
>  * agree on who does what til when
>
> 6. Vote, Discuss: Get some lobbying activity started in Brussels
>  (Thorsten, Italo, 5 mins)
>
>  * Italo made a proposal to the board
>  * motion: approve this year's travel expenses from the (still
>plentiful) marketing budget
>
> 7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
>
>  * ESC provided evaluation
>  * discussed briefly on the dev list:
>
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html
>  * conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
>attic for the moment
>  * auto-atticize according to
>
>
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html
> ?
>
> ### Private Part
>
> 8. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
>  Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.
>
> 9. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)
>  Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.
>
> 10. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten
> Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)
>   Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.
>
>   * Second quarter for the new board is up, so let's hear reports
> from the various oversight groups.
>
> 11. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
>   Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
>   sending the agenda
>
>
> --
> Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
> Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
> The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
> Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
>
> --
> To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive:
> https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
> Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
>
>

-- 
*Simon Phipps*
*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
*Signal/Telegram/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816

[board-discuss] Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

[Stephan Ficht]

Dear Community,

find below the agenda for our

TDF board meeting with a public part, and followed by a private part
on Monday, October 31 at 1800 Berlin time at
https://jitsi.documentfoundation.org/TDFBoard

For time zone conversion, see e.g.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converted.html?p1=37=49=107=20221031T18

## AGENDA:

### Public Part

1. Answering questions from the community (tdf-board, 5 mins)
Rationale: Provide an opportunity for the community to ask
questions to the board and about TDF

2. Status Report: Strategy planning (Cor Nouws, 5 mins)

* status update and next steps
* based on the Milano strategy workshop
* materials: https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/1129829

3. Status Report, Discuss: LibreOffice in the app stores (Florian
Effenberger, 5 mins)

Status report and various ongoing discussions
* Cloph to work out a proposal, which update regime with roughly
  one year of updates (regardless of purchasing time) could work
* one year of updates seems reasonable
* vouchers do not scale, creating internal, staggered releases on
  the stores might do (to group users together, so timings for EOL
  can be ~independent from purchasing dates)

5. Discuss: OSI initiative on FLOSS in app stores (Thorsten, Simon, 10
mins)

* OSI is currently asking for input & experience from FLOSS
  projects
* agree on who does what til when

6. Vote, Discuss: Get some lobbying activity started in Brussels
(Thorsten, Italo, 5 mins)

* Italo made a proposal to the board
* motion: approve this year's travel expenses from the (still
  plentiful) marketing budget

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)

* ESC provided evaluation
* discussed briefly on the dev list:

https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2022-October/089485.html
* conclusion seems to be: not enough activity to keep out of the
  attic for the moment
* auto-atticize according to

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00744.html 
?


### Private Part

8. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Stephan Ficht, 5 mins)
Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

9. Status Report: HR item (Florian Effenberger, Gabor Kelemen, 5 mins)
Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

10. Status Report: Reporting from the oversight groups (Thorsten 
Behrens, tdf-board, 5 mins)

 Reason for privacy: HR, tax and legal topics.

 * Second quarter for the new board is up, so let's hear reports
   from the various oversight groups.

11. Discuss: Last minute item(s) (tdf-board, 5 mins)
 Rationale: if there is time left, and anything is popping up after
 sending the agenda


--
Stephan Ficht, Administrative Assistant
Tel: +49 30 5557992-64 | Mail: stephan.fi...@documentfoundation.org
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy