On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Florian Effenberger <[email protected]> wrote: > Helllo, > > Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 2012-02-25 00:59: > > >> ESC member are there in an 'individual' capacity. Their company >> affiliation is only relevant to the extent that we try to avoid one >> company having too much weight... > > > the way I read ยง 8 IV of our statues (documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf), > there is no legally binding requirement per se to have only a limited number > of affiliated people in the ESC,
The ESC is intentionally _not_ a 'legal entity' of TDF, that does not prevent us from adopting sane rules to safeguard the integrity of the ESC purpose :-) Furthermore the guiding document here is our bylaws, which explicitly set a 30% limit "At any time, no more than thirty per cent (30%) of the members of the ESC may work for the same company, organization or entity (or any of its subsidiaries) as employees or affiliates. " > although it is highly suggested to have > similar rules as for foundation bodies there as well. Plus "The board of > directors can to resolve the conflict of interest by expelling the necessary > number of members from other committee at once, and/or replace member by > other members of such committee.", so I propose that we enforce comparable > rules. Indeed... We (the ESC) already do enforce it, in accordance with our bylaws. > This, of course, requires disclosure of the ESC members' affiliation, > if it affects his role there (but only then). Yes, Then again, since we know each other and when new people are suggested for the ESC, they also are usually well known of the dev community (including their affiliation) that is not really a problem... but certainly we can/should mention the affiliation internally when informing the BoD of the composition of the ESC. The question was should that be published/advertised... I have no strong objection to it... I just mentioned that it was not essential. I suspect that people that are sponsored by their employer to contribute would want their affiliation known... but I can imagine case of people that _do_ contribute, but do not want or cannot have their employer name associated with it. > > >> For the AB, that is exactly the oposite. people are there representing >> company, so the affiliation is the mandatory information... the name >> of the individual representing that company is less important and >> susceptible to change at the discretion of the AB-member. so trying to >> keep that public list up-to-date with individuals name is an >> unnecessary burden IMO. > > > Thinking about it a second time: The same paragraph as cited above foresees > that only 1/3 of the AB has the same affiliation. Therefore, I think knowing > the seat holders by name in public is important, so everyone can verify that > (remember our rule of transparency). I'm confused... how would 'everyone' verify if John Doe is an employee of entity X... or for that matter a contractor for entity X (the representative of entity X does not necessary has to be an employee of that company) Beside by definition of the AB there should be 1 company = 1 seat no ? how can you have more than 1/3 unless the AB is reduce to 2 or less member ? Or are you considering the affiliation of the AB representative of entity X to be the actual employer. so for instance if SPI send John Doe as their representative and John Doe happen to work for ATT for a living, would you consider his affiliation to be SPI or ATT ? if it is the former then the 1/3 rule is moot for AB. if it is the latter then that can be an issue, since AB member would be restricted in whom they choose to represent them based on other AB member respective choice... choice that can change at any time at their discretion... iow: I think the balance in the AB composition should be achieve by the BoD when they _accept_/_renew_ entities on the AB, considering that a given representative is affiliated to the entity he represent, irrespective of other affiliations he may have. This is especially harmless since the AB is purely an 'advisory' entity and cannot make binding decisions on behalf of TDF. > > Without knowing who is member of the ESC and/or AB, nobody could, so to say, > "challenge" their composition. Well: if you can infer/verify the company from a name in the case of the AB, then surely you can do the reciprocal for ESC... and if you can't, knowing the 'declared' affiliation will not help you to verify/challenge the composition. Norbert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
