Hi Uwe, On 27/11/2022 18:55, Uwe Altmann wrote:
Hi AndreasWhile you don't like answers in private mail I post it on this list. Am 27.11.22 um 16:44 schrieb Andreas Mantke:I'm curious to read own statements from the 'several of the community' here.Maybe most of us follow the golden rule of mailing lists not to feed trolls? ;-)
Who are you calling trolls?It's probably an acceptable term in mailing list where some people use anonymity to disrupt a community.
What we have seen in this thread is an ex-director interfering with a vote with proven false statements and our chairman jumping on that message and embracing that false statement to influence the vote as well.
If they were "simple trolls" we could just try to ignore them but the situation is a lot more serious than that.
Seriously: I feel we all are tired of this discussion and I may imagine many of us don't even follow them in detail any more - not out of a lack of interest but mostly because of the way it was and is conducted.
Then I wonder if there is any point for me to invest so much time in providing the community with information they could and should check to evaluate if the board is taking the right decisions.
This is one of the many examples where the community could, in a few minutes, check the facts and express an informed opinion about what is happening.
Coming to the controversial part of the proposal: In my pov it's sheer nonsense to write such statements like those discussed here into a job description or even a contract. Not only the person concerned hardly is in the position to decide on these issues; its also in the full responsibility of his or her boss to decide what they are working on - and no way in the developers own consideration. And I'm rather confident that this also was part of the legal advice the board has got.
I guess it's obvious to most that the legal advice would have gone that way.I've tried to explain it in many ways but Jan preferred to resign than accept that it was "sheer nonsense", that's the same "sheer nonsense" that our chairman wants and he's ready to support false statements to make the vote fail. On top of it we can now read another proposal presented by Cor and prepared with "others" which repeats once again the same "sheer nonsense".
In a benevolent view on this document it may at best serve as a board's internal letter of intent. But I'm sure - however (if ever) it is voted, when it comes to concrete decisions, the same discussion will arise with new energy. So it's most probably in no case worth all the fuss we see today.
Taking in consideration this additional example of disregard for facts and legal advise a simple "internal letter of intent", IMHO, would not be worth they bytes used to store it.
My advice emphases the KISS rule (we always should kiss more): Keep it simple, st... :-)
I'd love to do that but we've seen a few times that not defining things clearly it leaves room for abuses. Then even when the processes are defined and agreed false statements are used to kill a proposal.
It would be great if you could invest a bit more time in evaluating the facts so that you could fine tune your advice do a situation that doesn't seem to fit with the behaviours expected in most boards.
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
