Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hello Gianluca,

Le Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:50:28 +0100,
Gianluca Turconi <> a écrit :

Il 14/11/2010 14.29, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:

1) Quotation from the draft: "The Engineering Steering Committee
(ESC) is made of developers who are coopted (i.e, there's no need
for election and there can be as many members of the ESC as

question: *must* these developers be Foundation *members* at the
same time too?

Your question is giving me the opportunity to clarify something
which is in the bylaws but it needs to be clearly written: the
foundation itself (the legal entity) will not/shall not have members
per se.

OK. It works like in Italy.

So, we're now *formally* speaking about a real Foundation, not an
"Association" with members.

Yes. Although this notion fades away as soon as you're into an
Anglo-Saxon context. But so far, we intend to have a real foundation,
if we can't, we'll still keep the "formal setting" and concept of a

Therefore, if I'm not wrong, there is a whole part of the bylaws that
is "informal" (membership, board election, ...), this is to say it is
not legally enforceable in a country like France or Italy. Or it is 
partially enforceable only.

Yes, and this is why we named them "community bylaws" and not a
"Foundation bylaws" or "statutes". So this document is what we do on a
daily basis, not an establishment of an entity. But we do intend to
follow these bylaws, as they will be the one ruling how we work and

That's just fine, IMO, as far as the (individual) "members" exactly
know what their *real*, legally enforceable rights are. In a
sentence: where the Foundation ends and the Community begins.


Corporations and administrations understand this kind of stuff better 
than individual persons. ;-)

possible issue: sponsored developers can be coopted by other
developers and their employer can gain more powers/rights other
than the seat in the Advisory Board.

Yes it is a risk, but then there is also social pressure, that works
in two ways. What would you suggest ?

A balance of powers. :)

This is to say: both BoD and ESC with a fixed number of members
should be elected from "members" and "members-developers" and a
maximum % of those seats reserved to main sponsors. AB with its
advisory role remains for *all* sponsors.

Well, I don't wish to discriminate that much; see my proposed provision
for the three members of the BoD as being employees of the same
company. As for the ESC, I do believe that (aside the solution
discussed for the Chairman's election) we should thus have either a
limit on its members with equal or similar provision put on the number
of employees of a same corporation, and a specific number of members
(we can have a variation and a ratio if needed).


Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.