El 7 de abril de 2022 6:58:39 a. m. GMT-03:00, Michael Meeks
<[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
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
