Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index



Op 3-12-2020 om 08:31 schreef Lionel Élie Mamane:

On the subject of conflict of interest, the choice made by the
Statutes is _not_ to exclude "conflict of interest" votes, but to
limit those to _one_ _third_. You may think that is a poor choice, you
certainly can campaign for a *future* change of the statutes on this
point, but you cannot remove votes expressed in accordance with, and
within, the limits of the statutes, and other established rules, as
they stood during the vote.

If CoI votes were to be excluded, why would the composition of the
board be limited to one third from the same company? If CoI votes were
excluded, we can have e.g. 70% (five members out of seven) board
members from the same company, and on each conflict-of-interest vote,
the votes of the five are excluded (or rather, they don't vote), and
the remaining two board members vote among themselves. To me, this is
an indication that the limit of one-third is intended as _another_
solution to the CoI problem than "exclude CoI votes", not cumulative
to it. (Again, it doesn't mean I think it is a good choice.)

They whole coi is pretty technical matter if you ask me.
And there is they difference between etiquette/moral responsibility (they they community feeling represented). So you might technically be able to vote, but refraining/absence maybe better to prevent becoming a paria within the community So there might not be a strict legal obligation. So pretty gray area what people can do/not do. Also there is they question who decides about COI and  about they 'sanctioning' of a breach.

1) The Board of Directors prevents possible conflicts of interest within the foundation.

-> Task directed to Board of Directors. Not saying what to do if they BoD internally maybe comprised..

2) It ensures therefore that a maximum of one third of the members of the Board of Directors, the Membership Committee and the Advisory Board are employed at the same firm, organization or entity or one of its affiliate organizations.
A practical rule to prevent coi in the most obvious case

3) It can exclude one member of the body each month until the conflict of interest is eliminated or a new election of the body is initiated.
-> How does to BoD decide if they are themselves comprised?

It looks they statutes assume BoD being the gate keeper not expected to be trouble themselves.

You're right about they 1/3. Except its talking about maximum.. So it could theoretical be lower? However at some point we land at elections and such. The members did appoint they BoD.

Anyhow, they squabble of coI kind of side-kick. However, people must be aware of they multi-head dilemma. Which can cause problems. As hard to believe someone has opinion from his company perspective and holding totally different opinion at TDF

It also comes down what TDF represents. Is it in core a code hub/platform, or has it a mission be itself. So is distribution of a free LibreOffice binary Office Suite to main goal of TDF or code sharing/infra and
they LibreOffice software for free kind of side-kick.
They position of BoD members in a code hub/platform is bit different from a TDF community with own goals and purpose, which cannibalizing on they market of eco-system partners. There is more air/room to argue more in you're own interest, if TDF being intended as code/infra hub/platform. . As it's about sharing infra and such. Not about building a competitor.
In that case they coi more or less vanishes from argumentative perspective.
They TDF community might desire something differently, but that's whole different topic/story. Not in line with reality.

It's a all obviously matter of presentation of facts c.q. story telling. Which also includes to whole product/project topic :-) They fuzz is created because they project creates a product. And product has market share/ brand (LibreOffice). So idea gets a hold of product equals project (identifying project based on product). Which entails arguing more from product vision.
This maybe misconceiving the intended purpose of founding fathers.

There are surely more vision flying around in the community compared to what can actually be true.  People are simply not on the same page. This makes communication/decision making really really hard. Especially if you ask input from they community. We are living in different bubbles (paradigm's/reality's)  with totally - contra-dictional - expectations.

Regards,
Telesto



--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@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

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.