Hi Andreas, :-) > There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every thing > is in the > course of formation. Because I know a bit about German law I can assure you > that it > takes a longer time (not days or a month) to establish a foundation.
Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing almost every clause of the Community Bylaws. You can set up the ESC. You can set up the membership committee. You can hold elections for the BoD, as a *morally-implemented* team. You can set up the proportional-representation voting system. You can hold elections and votes. You can appoint teams. You can appoint team leads. The *moral* life of the Community can exist and function entirely independently of whether or not there is yet an officially-formed Foundation under German or UK law. And most notably, you can already implement all the principles of community consultation and information, membership equality and meritocracy, exactly as Charles wrote them and as I re-phrased them into good, clear English. When you *truly* implement the Community Bylaws, and all the instances and principles of governance of the Bylaws, and all the principles laid down in the Bylaws (without waiting for the legal, "physical" formation of the Foundation), then you will have truly built a community, and you will be able to claim legitimacy. I would like to see an interim MC formed within the next 2-3 weeks, and for members to be considered and approved/rejected within 2-3 weeks after that. Then I would like to see elections held for the 9 seats of the BoD (a "virtual", "moral" BoD) within 3 weeks after the existence of an official body of Community members. When that happens, I feel sure that LibreOffice will truly take-off as a community, we will see genuine meritocracy, and there will be a healthy situation within the LibreOffice project. David Nelson On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi SC members, :-) > > Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to > see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the > various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set > up and become active. > > I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I > strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we > need to take action quite quickly. > > I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active > community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support > queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that > the level of contribution to development is also decreasing. > > We have a situation in which a key project resource, the > libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling > for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the > website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction > of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming > extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project). > > I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives > (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews > with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to > find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action, > refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring > me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject. > > When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very > proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk > of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly > discouraged from taking the idea further. > > These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from > certain SC members are contrary to the > principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in > the bylaws. > > Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a > three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: > 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or > simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of > times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at > least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this > assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some > are more equal than others". :-D > > The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it > was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to > becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The > situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it > starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". ;-) > > I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the > LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next > couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will > progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed. > Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and > disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the > LibreOffice project could end up orphaned. > > In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate > contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the > necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not > take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the > corporate contributors you currently have (Novell and Red Hat)? > > Even if TDF does not now have the funds to establish itself legally, > there is nothing to stop you implementing the bylaws at a moral and > organizational level right from the present time. You might then > attract more financial contributions to enable you to set up a legal > structure in either Germany or the UK. > > I hereby request you to discuss the issue of formal adoption and > implementation of the Community Bylaws during either the next SC > confcall or - at latest - during the next-but-one SC confcall (if you > need time to prepare), and to take some formal decisions in this > respect within a short time frame. > > David Nelson > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
