Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [board-discuss] AB-Member and ESC-Member on TDF-Website


Hi,

Norbert Thiebaud wrote on 2012-02-25 12:11:

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 :-)

yes, and yes. :-)

Furthermore the guiding document here is our bylaws, which explicitly
set a 30% limit

While I do not want to change this limit per se, keep in mind that the current bylaws are in a draft state. We're right now working on having a version in the wiki that is based on the legally binding statutes, plus the currently in draft community statutes as foreseen by the legally binding statutes. It's some confusion due to the legal terms right now, but we hope to resolve that soon.

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.

Well, I would prefer if the affiliation was made public, at least if there are no strong reasons against. It should not only be the board being able (and thus solely responsible) for finding possible conflicts of interest, but the general public and our members should be able to do so, therefore having it public would be best. Otherwise, we limit the options too much here, I'd say.

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)

How would the BoD do? I think we don't have magical superpowers here either. ;-) So, having it in public enables more people to raise concerns, and would support our case of transparency. Of course, sometimes there might be strong reasons no to mention the affiliation, but the principle should be to mention it.

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 ?

Just as an example: Imagine $BigCorp USA wants to join independent from $BigCorp Asia and $BigCorp Europe. Or $HeadAssociation wants to join, as well as $Subdivision1 and $Subdivision2. All theoretical for the moment, but I guess not impossible, though those might be bad examples.

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

I think we will see this in practice. Of course, if someone works for e.g. a TV station, an ice cream producer or in a pharmacy, they don't have any real affiliation to software development. But, let's assume that someone works for $BigCorp, but is in the AB on behalf of an association he engages himself for. Now imagine three more employees of $BigCorp, being in the AB for three other organizations. I think in this case, the primary employer is important.

So, while I agree this is also theoretical, the more we can make public, the better it will be, the more it will serve our matter of transparency.

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <floeff@documentfoundation.org>
Chairman of the Board at The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
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

Context


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.