Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi Paolo, More than happy - as always - to discus ways to improve. Naturally we will then have to distinct between assumptions, anxiety, facts and framing. Since wisdom in discussions in not a given per see, and confusion may settle all too easy, let's at least start in the board. Cheers, Cor Paolo Vecchi wrote on 10/04/2022 23:39: Hi all, On 10/04/2022 15:01, Cor Nouws wrote: And while not always perfect, I'm convinced that we are doing a great job in working in a fair, compliant, and transparent way. The system is clearly not perfect and it has been said that changes are necessary for a long time so the fact that your are convinced that we have been doing a great job seems to indicate that warnings are still being ignored. This is of major importance to help that people and companies feel welcome. Commercial contributors are surely welcome especially those that work out business models that do not base their profitability on tenders or in weakening TDF's brands to become monopolies. Actions that may give the impression that companies are seen as threat, are not. Nobody sees companies as a threat but some representative of the commercial contributors in the past wanted to push projects and narratives that would have damaged TDF and the wider community, those threats have been neutralised after long battles but we must remain vigilant as they may be pushed forward again in future. Ciao Paolo -- 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] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi all, On 10/04/2022 15:01, Cor Nouws wrote: And while not always perfect, I'm convinced that we are doing a great job in working in a fair, compliant, and transparent way. The system is clearly not perfect and it has been said that changes are necessary for a long time so the fact that your are convinced that we have been doing a great job seems to indicate that warnings are still being ignored. This is of major importance to help that people and companies feel welcome. Commercial contributors are surely welcome especially those that work out business models that do not base their profitability on tenders or in weakening TDF's brands to become monopolies. Actions that may give the impression that companies are seen as threat, are not. Nobody sees companies as a threat but some representative of the commercial contributors in the past wanted to push projects and narratives that would have damaged TDF and the wider community, those threats have been neutralised after long battles but we must remain vigilant as they may be pushed forward again in future. Ciao Paolo -- 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] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi Andreas, Andreas Mantke wrote on 09/04/2022 14:17: In an ideal world we would have volunteers with 20 years knowledge and 100% spare time. Unfortunately bills need to be paid and we need to care about the ecosystem. At least not to work against them. Yes, TDF needs to care about the ecosystem, but that ecosystem should be divers and not dominated by only one or two companies. Of course it is good when there are more companies and more paid developers involved. And I think, looking from where we came (OpenOffice.org with one company having ~all the saying and control) I understand your concerns about a balance. Also I think we did a wonderful job by how we set up TDF: it brings together all sort of stakeholders, people with all sorts of interest in the software we develop and makes sure that it is impossible that any single entity has a power that comes only close to what was in the past: representation in ESC, Board, MC from one single entity is max 33%. And how much we as TDF can work to make the community an attractive place to be and to invest, so little influence we have on how the software market will develop. As is the case for our ecosystem partners too. But business people look to the world with different eyes, searching for or creating opportunities, which is an art on its own. No doubt, it is pretty hard for a community, foundation, as TDF, to have influence on the powers in the market, other then what we do by our open development, efforts in mentoring, and the possibilities and demands of the software license. And of course by tendering parts of development that are good for the whole project, but apparently are not picked up y community/ecosystem developers. And probably there is even a place for in house development to help areas that mostly left orphaned. Our tenders also bring in a possibility for (relative) new-comers to find a place in the community. Tenders have a clear description, people around that can give more info, a number of expected number of days involved (as set by the ESC and/or developer providing info on the wiki). Getting more involved in the development of the software, for sure is one thing that may help growing a position in the market around LibreOffice. And while not always perfect, I'm convinced that we are doing a great job in working in a fair, compliant, and transparent way. This is of major importance to help that people and companies feel welcome. Actions that may give the impression that companies are seen as threat, are not. Thus TDF needs to work on a strategy to solve this issue and attract more supplier (small, mid sized or big). One strategy to get ahead on this topic could it be to contract full-time developer (by TDF). Indeed, I really look forward to spent my time for TDF/the BoD on the real needs of our community: how do we get more people in, more developers, more companies that put trust in us. Cheers, Cor -- 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] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi Heiko, all, Am 09.04.22 um 08:51 schrieb Heiko Tietze: On 08.04.22 23:48, Paolo Vecchi wrote: You may understand that an external observer may not see the procedure as being fair and conflict free... If you take me as an external observer, the opposite is true. Collabora is home for many experts, every single one always supportive, and never acted against the interests of the project. it's great to have a lot of certified developer, which are able to work on LibreOffice. But if you have a look on e.g. https://www.documentfoundation.org/gethelp/developers/ you see that most of them are contracted by Collabora. And if you make a small research inside the git log, you'll find out that the list at the website is not up to date. There seemed to be further certified developers, stated as unaffiliated, which are working for the company (with an appropriate account). In an ideal world we would have volunteers with 20 years knowledge and 100% spare time. Unfortunately bills need to be paid and we need to care about the ecosystem. At least not to work against them. Yes, TDF needs to care about the ecosystem, but that ecosystem should be divers and not dominated by only one or two companies. Thus TDF needs to work on a strategy to solve this issue and attract more supplier (small, mid sized or big). One strategy to get ahead on this topic could it be to contract full-time developer (by TDF). But I'm much concerned about the tone in the discussions lately (replying just here). I suggest to start with the assumptions that contributing to an open source project in general and LibreOffice in particular * is primarily idealistic and fun, * has never the goal to destroy the project (neither the power to do so), * and brings together people with same interests. All the time and effort you spend in the project shows this and I'm grateful to have someone to bring up the painful subjects. We all should consider everyone else having the same dedication too. I think the whole discussion is about this painful subjects and the process to solve the issues. The later one is not for everybody fun. But it's necessary for the reputation of TDF to make the process more transparent and less risky. 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] Dividing & excluding ...
On 08.04.22 23:48, Paolo Vecchi wrote: You may understand that an external observer may not see the procedure as being fair and conflict free... If you take me as an external observer, the opposite is true. Collabora is home for many experts, every single one always supportive, and never acted against the interests of the project. In an ideal world we would have volunteers with 20 years knowledge and 100% spare time. Unfortunately bills need to be paid and we need to care about the ecosystem. At least not to work against them. But I'm much concerned about the tone in the discussions lately (replying just here). I suggest to start with the assumptions that contributing to an open source project in general and LibreOffice in particular * is primarily idealistic and fun, * has never the goal to destroy the project (neither the power to do so), * and brings together people with same interests. All the time and effort you spend in the project shows this and I'm grateful to have someone to bring up the painful subjects. We all should consider everyone else having the same dedication too. Cheers, Heiko OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
Dear Mr Meeks, thank you for providing your opinion as the general manager of one of our 2 commercial contributors. I really appreciate the technical contributions that your employees/affiliates provide while formulating request for tenders, rank them in the ESC, rank them in the board of directors, vote them in the budget and then bid for them. You may understand that an external observer may not see the procedure as being fair and conflict free so it would be a very good idea to improve the process so that all the commercial contributors, existing and new, will have the same fair opportunity to participate to the tendering process. Creating a narrative of division and exclusion is, IMHO, not only irresponsible but also a demonstration of wanting to keep a process that to some seem to be beneficial only for a very few. Changes must be discussed publicly and then implemented. Best regards Paolo On 07/04/2022 11:58, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi there, Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea that there should be major concessions on one side only. I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten & Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they (along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) - bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of TDF & LibreOffice. I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on, how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes. Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and mandate of the members. Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the intention when it was created. So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be reflected our budget. Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the remaining pool for tendering. Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might (independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this argument aired here recently. It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people, while walking all over our statutes. TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders - and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer. TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only just about enough. TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas - and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the board, then the board takes this into account as it ranks this in the budget. There is no corruption here. Although - it can appear that this talk of conspiracy & malfeasance is primarily an attempt to overturn the will of the Trustees as reflected in the election results. Not every board member or Trustee is going to like every proposal - I would suggest that a "take it or leave it" approach to improving such
Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
El 7 de abril de 2022 12:28:00 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke escribió: >Hi, > >I'm put out by your reply. You try to move the subject to an emotional >we versus them or bad cop versus good cop. That's a repeated pattern, indeed. >There were 10 TDF members which decided to stand for the board at the >end of last year. Seven of this members were elected board members and >the other three deputy member. >As they decided to candidate for the board they knew about the CoI rules >of TDF. Thus they decided to follow this rules. A member of the board >(also a deputy) could only wear one head on the both sides of a table. >The whole board is responsible for the whole budget including e.g. items >for tenders. Thus ihe/she could not vote on the budget and be part of a >company / organization which bids for one of the tenders. >And to add: if CoI rules have no pain they are no real such rules. In >such case they wouldn't be worth the paper (and effort to write them down). > >And to add further: the whole thread has nothing to do with a judgment >about the work of any (deputy) member of the board! > >Am 07.04.22 um 11:58 schrieb Michael Meeks: >> Hi there, >> >> Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of >> this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea >> that there should be major concessions on one side only. >> >> I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten >> & Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they >> (along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) - >> bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a >> decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly >> and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I >> have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to >> be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of >> TDF & LibreOffice. >> >> I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from >> fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on, >> how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes. >> >> Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole >> board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with >> Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly >> no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with >> themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions >> are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of >> the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and >> mandate of the members. >> >> Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used >> maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their >> main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it >> should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the >> intention when it was created. >> >> So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for >> whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very >> things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should >> exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when >> Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice >> votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be >> reflected our budget. >> >> Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to >> spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check >> with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any >> decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the >> remaining pool for tendering. >> >> Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might >> (independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending >> related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this >> argument aired here recently. >> >> It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people, >> while walking all over our statutes. >> >> TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders - >> and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer. >> >> TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful >> people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only >> just about enough. >> >> TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a >> fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who >> wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open >> to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas - >> and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members >> to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is >> typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the >> board, then the board takes this into account
Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi, I'm put out by your reply. You try to move the subject to an emotional we versus them or bad cop versus good cop. There were 10 TDF members which decided to stand for the board at the end of last year. Seven of this members were elected board members and the other three deputy member. As they decided to candidate for the board they knew about the CoI rules of TDF. Thus they decided to follow this rules. A member of the board (also a deputy) could only wear one head on the both sides of a table. The whole board is responsible for the whole budget including e.g. items for tenders. Thus ihe/she could not vote on the budget and be part of a company / organization which bids for one of the tenders. And to add: if CoI rules have no pain they are no real such rules. In such case they wouldn't be worth the paper (and effort to write them down). And to add further: the whole thread has nothing to do with a judgment about the work of any (deputy) member of the board! Am 07.04.22 um 11:58 schrieb Michael Meeks: Hi there, Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea that there should be major concessions on one side only. I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten & Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they (along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) - bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of TDF & LibreOffice. I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on, how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes. Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and mandate of the members. Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the intention when it was created. So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be reflected our budget. Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the remaining pool for tendering. Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might (independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this argument aired here recently. It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people, while walking all over our statutes. TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders - and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer. TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only just about enough. TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas - and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the board, then the board takes this into account as it ranks this in the budget. If I don't oversee something in the mails on this list, the board seemed not to be provided with a list of the detailed votes of the ESC members at least this time. And maybe it's also wise to think about a possible CoI of ESC members, in case they vote on items for tender, which they later bid for.
Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
It's not an idea, I don't imagine stuff. It was a BoD only mailing list thread. That kind of thing is not said in public. El 7 de abril de 2022 9:12:26 a. m. GMT-03:00, Cor Nouws escribió: > > >Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 07/04/2022 13:17: > >> Are you, the same one who said 'non coders can't talk', .. > >I think I explained before, but happy to repeat, that the idea that >Michael said that, is at least a huge misinterpretation. > > >Cheers, >Cor > > >-- >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 >
Re: [board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
Daniel A. Rodriguez wrote on 07/04/2022 13:17: Are you, the same one who said 'non coders can't talk', .. I think I explained before, but happy to repeat, that the idea that Michael said that, is at least a huge misinterpretation. Cheers, Cor -- 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] Dividing & excluding ...
El 7 de abril de 2022 6:58:39 a. m. GMT-03:00, Michael Meeks escribió: >Hi there, > > Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of >this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea >that there should be major concessions on one side only. > > I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten >& Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they >(along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) - >bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a >decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly >and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I >have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to >be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of >TDF & LibreOffice. > > I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from >fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on, >how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes. > > Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole >board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with >Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly >no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with >themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions >are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of >the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and >mandate of the members. > > Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used >maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their >main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it >should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the >intention when it was created. > > So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for >whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very >things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should >exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when >Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice >votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be >reflected our budget. > > Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to >spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check >with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any >decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the >remaining pool for tendering. > > Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might >(independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending >related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this >argument aired here recently. > > It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people, >while walking all over our statutes. > > TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders - >and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer. > TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful >people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only >just about enough. Are you, the same one who said 'non coders can't talk', saying that just the people you mentioned are competent enough and helpful to represent trustees? > TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a >fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who >wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open >to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas - >and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members >to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is >typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the >board, then the board takes this into account as it ranks this in the >budget. > > There is no corruption here. > > Although - it can appear that this talk of conspiracy & >malfeasance is primarily an attempt to overturn the will of the >Trustees as reflected in the election results. > > Not every board member or Trustee is going to like every >proposal - I would suggest that a "take it or leave it" approach to >improving such proposals is deeply counter-productive. > > We go no-where good fast when we turn to attacking the >motivations of those who want to improve any proposal instead of >working together collaboratively to improve things. Huh? It seems your memory is not so good > So lets stop this nonsense for the good of TDF. > > Lets engage with critiquing the issues and proposals, and not critique >the people who are trying hard to do a good job on the board. > > Regards, > > Michael. > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems?
[board-discuss] Dividing & excluding ...
Hi there, Since it seems that there are only complainers on one side of this discussion let me give another view. If only to avoid the idea that there should be major concessions on one side only. I am thrilled that three of our founding team: Kendy, Thorsten & Cor are on the board, and fully engaged in the discussions - they (along with some of the other board members plus of course deputies) - bring as individuals a huge depth of experience, competence, and a decade+ of service each to LibreOffice. They are reasonable, friendly and like-able people who are working for the best of TDF. From what I have seen their approach to political discussion and compromise is to be reasonable, winsome, to look for what is possible for the good of TDF & LibreOffice. I see excluding such representatives of the Trustees from fundamental matters (such as budgeting what topics to spend money on, how to structure and run TDF etc.) as in conflict with our statutes. Such decisions by statute ($8.1) are to be taken by the whole board, which stands together for damages: I suppose I agree with Andreas on this. Any CoI policy is for a specific interest - clearly no director should vote on the conclusion of a transaction with themselves ($9.6) - that is reasonable: but the fundamental decisions are for the whole board - and budgeting is the explicit task ($8.2) of the board of directors as they fulfill the will of the founders and mandate of the members. Again - it is important that our CoI policy is not used maliciously to subvert democracy by excluding directors from their main statutory tasks. If this new policy is being mis-used for this it should be significantly amended in this regard; it was not the intention when it was created. So - let me vigorously complain as a Trustee: that those for whom I voted are being encouraged to exclude themselves from the very things that they were elected to do. The very idea that we should exclude some of our most competent is grim for TDF - particularly when Thorsten, Kendy, Cor, Gabor represent over 50% of the first-choice votes for board members. The will of those Trustees should be reflected our budget. Worse - since TDF uses tenders to complete what it needs to spend each year (something we are very badly behind at at last check with Eur ~2.5 million in the bank) - it is easy to argue that any decision with a spending aspect either increases or decreases the remaining pool for tendering. Using that fact to try to exclude anyone whose employer might (independent of them) submit a bid for a tender - from any spending related board decision (which is most of them) is grim. I've seen this argument aired here recently. It means tearing up the votes from Trustees for those people, while walking all over our statutes. TDF really needs competent suppliers to bid for its tenders - and we could use more entities applying there, not fewer. TDF really needs competent, friendly, welcoming, helpful people to stand on its board and represent its Trustees - we have only just about enough. TDF already has a firewall to avoid self dealing. It has a fair and completely opaque (to those bidding) process for choosing who wins. It has a process for selecting and estimating tasks that is open to all ideas - and is promoted by TDF itself. The ESC ranks ideas - and the primary problem in the past there has been chasing ESC members to do the work to evaluate and rank the proposals. The ESC ranking is typically provided with full details of who voted whatever way to the board, then the board takes this into account as it ranks this in the budget. There is no corruption here. Although - it can appear that this talk of conspiracy & malfeasance is primarily an attempt to overturn the will of the Trustees as reflected in the election results. Not every board member or Trustee is going to like every proposal - I would suggest that a "take it or leave it" approach to improving such proposals is deeply counter-productive. We go no-where good fast when we turn to attacking the motivations of those who want to improve any proposal instead of working together collaboratively to improve things. So lets stop this nonsense for the good of TDF. Lets engage with critiquing the issues and proposals, and not critique the people who are trying hard to do a good job on the board. Regards, Michael. -- michael.me...@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity Hangout: mejme...@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks (M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe -- 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:
