Agenda for TDF board meeting on Monday, October 31st at 1800 Berlin time (UTC+1)

Hi all, hi Simon,

(...)

    If you have a look into the statutes of TDF you'll find out  that
    it is
    necessary that at least the half of the board could attend the
    meeting.
    The half of the board are four members. Thus the board is not quorate
    and could not decide on this topic.

This is not so; all of these five directors are free to participate if
they believe they should and there is no breach of trust on their
part. *Having an interest to declare is not the same as having a
/conflict/ of interest* no matter how often the implication is made
that having an interest is disqualifying. If all of these directors
believe their employers' interests - which are clearly well understood
- can be held in balance with their personal elected role at TDF then
the onus is on an accuser to demonstrate why it is impossible for them
to balance their work life and private life in this case.

sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF. And if you would have
had a look into the document from the European Commision that was linked
by Paolo, you would know that you look onto this topic is not
appropriate for member states of the European Union.

It has not be proofed that a member of the board _has_ a CoI. It's
sufficient that he may have a CoI (potential). And if your company is
involved with the development and marketing/sale of Collabora Online you
have at least a potential CoI within LOOL and its future. And I'm being
very reluctant with speaking only of a potential CoI this time. Others
wouldn't formulate that reluctant.

So far I have not seen any attempt by anyone to demonstrate why all
these five directors are in breach of trust over the well-understood
interests. I suggest you do so before you repeat calls to exclude
elected directors from TDF's business.

Maybe you look into the European Commission document, linked by Paolo in
an earlier post, you'd get the complete knowledge on the topic within
countries of the European Union, like the one of TDF's home.

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 12:40 PM Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> wrote:

sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.

The TDF policy was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a full review, and has several places where clearer language would be welcome. The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum of potential personal interests that affect an open source community. In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong conclusions. I’ll assume those are the reasons why you have misunderstood it, rather than implying you have not read it.

It’s clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware that the Board has determined that any of the five people you keep accusing of a breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their personal interests with TDF’s interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation and mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a harmful way. I strongly suggest TDF’s Board follow that practice and leave accusations of breach of trust as a rare exception.

Regards

Simon

Hi all, hi Simon,

and also sorry for another post to correct misleading statements.

Hi Andreas, (and sorry for a second post here today all)

    sorry for beeing a bit undiplomatic on this topic. But your statements
    are not in accordance with the CoI policy of TDF.

The TDF policy
<https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf>
was rushed and drafted in an atmosphere of distrust that prevented a
full review, and has several places where clearer language would be
welcome. The Policy also fails to deal with the full spectrum
of potential personal interests that affect an open source community. 
In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the
wrong conclusions.  I'll assume those are the reasons why you have
misunderstood it, rather than implying you have not read it.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the
Board has determined that it is based on the evidence. I am not aware
that the Board has determined that any of the five people you keep
accusing of a breach of trust has in fact failed to balance their
personal interests with TDF's interests.

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust, most Boards on which I have served have assumed by
default that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a
declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the
organisation in a harmful way. I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow
that practice and leave accusations of breach of trust as a
rare exception.

it looks like you are not aware of the rules which applies to any
director of a foundation under German law like TDF. If a director has
especially a personal financial or business interest on a topic he could
not act on both sides of the same table. Because it is not possible to
throw away his personal interest she/he had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on TDF side. She/he _has_ a (at least) potential CoI
on that topic and thus is not allowed to act on the side of the foundation.

If she/he will not follow this rule it's a breach of the TDF statutes,
the TDF CoI policy and also of the general regulations.

It's not important how processes are done on organizations you served on
the board, but how things had to be handled within the TDF statutes and
the regulations, which apply for TDF' s place of business.

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Simon,

In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong conclusions.

Everyone can read there [1]:
"A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a Conflict of Interest when it *can* result in improper conduct."

My understanding of the word *can* is here: The possibility alone is sufficient.

It's clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board has determined that it is based on the evidence.

Everyone can read there[1]:
"The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action."

My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing Conflict of Interest, right?

Since a Board cannot function in a continual atmosphere of accusation
and mistrust

Indeed and very true. I am all with you.

most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default
that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a harmful way.

Great if that works out.

I strongly suggest TDF's Board follow that practice

I think thus following the actual Conflict of Interest Policy (BoD)[1] is a good starting point. And to consider what is written there, rather than interpretation.

Best
Stephan

[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/6/6e/BoD_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy_ver1_3_2.pdf

Hi,

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

It is interesting that this topic pops up again...
At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic, the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development on LOOL:
no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.
Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb, I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is open to all members. I'll continue there.

Cheers,
Cor

*) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Policies/Attic

Hi Stephan!

OK, one more reply (against my better judgement!)

In particular the wording of section 2 could lead a reader to the wrong
conclusions.
Everyone can read there [1]:
“A personal interest is not identical to, but tends to qualify as a
Conflict of Interest when it can result in improper conduct.”

My understanding of the word can is here: The possibility alone is
sufficient.

I do not read it that way. In that sentence “tends” and “can” go together and inform us the writer of that phrase felt that personal interest and CoI were usually the same thing but not always, without giving us any tools to understand when. The document promises to help us determine which personal interests conflict with TDF’s interests, and the only place a tool for that exists is in Section 5.3. So the best approach is still to regard 5.3 as definitive.

It’s clarified helpfully by Section 5.3 which explains that a personal
interest is not an actual/potential conflict of interest until the Board
has determined that it is based on the evidence.
Everyone can read there[1]:
“The remaining Board of Directors shall determine if a Conflict of
Interest actually exists, before the Board of Directors takes action.”

My conclusion: these two sentences lead straight away to an existing
Conflict of Interest, right?

I would not say so, no - the text says “if” not “that”, and that conclusion is not appropriate unless and until a CoI is determined by the Board.

I would suggest you “look down the telescope the other way” and ask what the Board’s actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the existence of a CoI. Every director is well aware both of the policy and of every other director’s declared interests so it seems safe to use this as an indicator. Section 5.3 indicates that if the Board has received notice and neither taken action nor determined the personal interests rise to the level of a CoI then there is no CoI.

most Boards on which I have served have assumed by default
that directors can be trusted to highlight any case where a declared
interest of theirs conflicts with the interests of the organisation in a
harmful way.
Great if that works out.

It has to be worth trying. Endlessly weaponising CoI to exclude TDF’s key contributors is getting tiresome.

And to consider what is written there, rather than interpretation.

There are unfortunately no safe direct readings of this document so interpretation is inevitable. Claiming any reading is plainly correct is itself an interpretive act.

Cheers

Simon

Good morning Thorsten,

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?

Cheers
Stephan

Hi Thorsten,

My answer to the first part below of your email (2022-10-30/14:57) related to my post on board-discuss@ ((2022-10-30/12:24):

Am 30.10.22 um 12:24 Stephan Ficht wrote:

@Andreas: I think your point of view is an interesting and logical way to
look at this point.

I am asking to know each director's opinion on this. Then we can discuss it
and everyone can form an informed opinion.

What is your opinion, Thorsten?

Ich halte es nicht für klug (und nicht in TDFs Interesse), diese
Diskussion öffentlich zu führen. Andreas ist mittlerweile Member, wir
können das also problemlos auf tdf-internal schieben.

===
browser translated:

I don't think it's wise (or in TDF's interest) to have this discussion public. Andreas is now a member, so we can easily move this to tdf-internal.

I don't think it's wise (or in TDF's interest) to have this discussion public.

end

Why please?
Who defines TDF's interest?
Where one can find it? German laws? TDF-manifesto? TDF-statutes?, TDF-policies, others?

===
browser translated:

Andreas is now a member, so we can easily move this to tdf-internal.

end

Independent of the sender I replied to a post on board-discuss@ in my capacity as member of the Board of Trustees or, at least, as someone expressing his opinion or asking a question on a public mailing list topic.
Why do you want to exclude those who will then no longer be able to follow this thread on tdf-internal?
Isn't board-discuss@ destinated to discuss with the TDF's board to involve the wider community and interested people?

Könntest Du bitte Deine Frage dort neu stellen?

===
browser translated:

Could you please re-post your question there?

end

Please let me wait for your answers first.

Sorry
Stephan

Hi Stephan,

Stephan Ficht wrote:

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?

I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Best,

-- Thorsten

Hi Thorsten,

Stephan Ficht wrote:

Regarding the email below, is there a need for any updates or information
that needs to be shared publicly prior to the board meeting? on Oct 31?

I believe Italo answered meanwhile?

Ok. So the information was shared on board-discuss@

Thanks
Stephan

Hi,

Hi,

7. Status Report, Discuss: Atticization of Online (tdf-board, 10 mins)
...

because there are four board members with a direct link to the product
Collabora Online (staff of Collabora Productivity or staff/owner of
Allotropia, which has a contract for the distribution of Collabora
Online), there are only three board members without CoI on this topic.

It is interesting that this topic pops up again...

and also very interesting that the reply is again a side track. Some
would also say trying to lay a smoke-screen

At the time of the decision I've already explained that this topic,
the process, is about sanity of the code available at TDF (see attic
policy *). It has nothing to do with presumed blocking of development
on LOOL:
no one is blocking anyone on developing anywhere.

It is not about code sanity, but about blocking the development of LOOL
under the TDF umbrella and within LibreOffice resources. And if you look
at the Collabora staff website
(https://www.collaboraoffice.com/about-us-2/) you'll find out, that the
sales team member of this ecosystem company, which sells the LibreOffice
Online fork 'Collabora Online, states here that he has no potential
personal interest in this topic.

This statement is a complete misunderstanding of the TDF policy and the
regulations for members of a board of a legal entity.

Andreas, Paolo (and others) showed great enthusiasm and confidence in
working on the code base of LOOL. With a little tweak on the proverb,
I would like to encourage people: "put your energy where the mouth is".

It's a shame that a member of the board of a Free Software entity refer
to develop OSS software on a proprietary resource and close the the
doors of the entity.

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.

It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?

Regards,
Andreas

Hi all,

Hi,

Hi,

Then, some details really deserve attention on tdf-internal@, that is
open to all members. I'll continue there.

It would be great to continue on this list, because I think TDF has
nothing to hide on this topic, has it?

I agree with Andreas that this discussion should be kept public. I find this ping pong between private and public lists very problematic for the transparency and the clarity of the debate. Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.

Cheers
Sophie

hi Andreas,

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

but why do you stop at this step?

if i count correctly, of the directors that approved various versions of the CoI policy, a majority of them either have subsequently restricted their actions due to potential CoI, or there is an investigation for potentially having a CoI ongoing at the moment.

following your line of argument that the policy applies to decisions that lead to decisions where the policy applies, it's clear that none of them should have participated in discussing or voting on the CoI policy, since all of them have an obvious CoI with the CoI policy because it could potentially restrict their actions, and therefore the CoI policy has never been properly accepted for lack of quorum (4 directors).

[board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.2 of the CoI policy
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05506.html

of 6 votes, 4 were by directors with potential CoI

[board-discuss] [VOTE] Approve version 1.3.1 of the CoI policy
https://www.mail-archive.com/board-discuss%40documentfoundation.org/msg05130.html

of 5 votes, 3 were by directors with potential CoI

in both cases, only 2 directors who don't have an interest in the CoI policy participated in the vote.

best regards,
  michael

Hi!

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:06 AM sophi <sophi@libreoffice.org> wrote:

Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.

Are all TDF Trustees on board-discuss then? Do you have statistics to clarify this please?

Forcing divisive discussions to be held in public chills contributions from people whose employers (not necessarily LibreOffice-related) prefer staff to avoid public disputes and advantages those who have no such concerns. That’s why it is a smart policy to keep “family business inside the family” and conduct Trustee business on a Trustee mailing list.

The best solution would be to scrap the tdf-internal list and have these discussions on tdf-membership where everyone with responsibility for the eventual outcome is subscribed but where the media cannot abuse their contributions and future employers can’t find it in searches.

Cheers

Simon

Hi Michael, all,

hi Andreas,

In additon: I reviewed the whole process about sending a project to the
attic again. The proposal for the process seemed to neutral text, but it
was only written and voted on for one subproject: LOOL.
The only four members, which participated in the vote and agreed on the
proposal, had all a CoI on the LibreOffice Online topic, except one. The
three members had to stay away from the discussion and decision on this
proposal,  because of their CoI. Thus there were only one effective
participation and vote on the proposal. Thus the proposal was not
approved.

Conclusion: there is also no approved basis for topic 7.

but why do you stop at this step?

if i count correctly, of the directors that approved various versions
of the CoI policy, a majority of them either have subsequently
restricted their actions due to potential CoI, or there is an
investigation for potentially having a CoI ongoing at the moment.

you refer to the decision that elaborate on the statutes of TDF and the
general regulations for foundations and entities. In contrast the
decision about the attic process was not forced by the statutes or the
general regulations but by an interest to block the further development
of LOOL inside the LibreOffice project. This decision was done by three
members with a (potential?) CoI on just this topic.

Thus you compare apples with oranges here.

And to add: if TDF wouldn't have a CoI policy the statutes and the
general regulations for foundations and entities would lead to the same
result. The attic policy looks general but was created only on purpose
of LOOL/Collabora Online. Thus three board members has an personal
(financial) interest, which conflicts with TDF's one. Because of their
special fiduciary duty this board members had to stay away from any
discussion/decision on the attic topic.

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Simon,

Hi!

  Plus, not all TDF members are on tdf-internal.

Are all TDF Trustees on board-discuss then? Do you have statistics to
clarify this please?

Did I say that all TDF members are on board-discuss?

Forcing divisive discussions to be held in public chills contributions from
people whose employers (not necessarily LibreOffice-related) prefer staff
to avoid public disputes and advantages those who have no such concerns.
That's why it is a smart policy to keep "family business inside the family"
and conduct Trustee business on a Trustee mailing list.

The best solution would be to scrap the tdf-internal list and have these
discussions on tdf-membership where everyone with responsibility for the
eventual outcome is subscribed but where the media cannot abuse their
contributions and future employers can't find it in searches.

I don't get that so I won't discuss it, assuming my words is part of my open source engagement too.

Cheers,
Sophie

Hi Simon,

I would suggest you "look down the telescope the other way" and ask what the Board's actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the existence of a CoI.

With regard to PI/CoI (personal interest / conflict of interest) it's an interesting approach to "abuse" a telescope that is originally designed to see things more clearly.
Being a child I had fun to see things far away "having looked down the telescope the other way round". Nowadays I prefer to use it the right way in order to get the macro effect without neglecting the whole picture.

weaponising CoI

Sorry, Simon, but IMHO I don't think this is the right wording.
PI and, if there are, resulting CoI's are clearly defined and written down in all the paperwork TDF has established and agreed to or in binding German laws.
Not explaining a conflict, IMO, doesn't mean that it does not actually exist. Otherwise that would be too trivial.

Cheers
Stephan

Hi Stephan,

thank you for your comments.

It's good to see that we have staff members that are actively participating in discussion to help improving processes within TDF.

Hi Simon,

I would suggest you "look down the telescope the other way" and ask what the Board's actions (or rather the lack of them) tell us about the existence of a CoI.

With regard to PI/CoI (personal interest / conflict of interest) it's an interesting approach to "abuse" a telescope that is originally designed to see things more clearly.
Being a child I had fun to see things far away "having looked down the telescope the other way round". Nowadays I prefer to use it the right way in order to get the macro effect without neglecting the whole picture.

What a telescope can't help in seeing, as Simon said, is the lack of some actions that finally started appearing since a couple of BoD meeting with a basic declaration of personal interests.

It is a start which helps in refining standard procedures, which are generally handled by you Stephan, so that all members of the board follow their fiduciary duties by preparing for the meeting reading and evaluating the relevant information so that they can also start sending the list of their personal interests and avoid influencing the relevant discussions/votes.

weaponising CoI

Sorry, Simon, but IMHO I don't think this is the right wording.
PI and, if there are, resulting CoI's are clearly defined and written down in all the paperwork TDF has established and agreed to or in binding German laws.
Not explaining a conflict, IMO, doesn't mean that it does not actually exist. Otherwise that would be too trivial.

I kind of side with Simon in the specific example of the investigation against me in relation to LOOL. I found it very odd that our chairman started the investigation against me while he's the director of a company reselling LOOL's fork and 3 others, 2 representing the vendor and 1 is his employee, voted to start the investigation and spent a considerable amount of time focusing on me without looking at their own position.

So in a way a CoI could be "weaponised" by dragging on an investigation for 3/4 months, I don't know when they actually started it, to censor a director.

It seems clear that the process needs to be improved so that personal interests that are obvious are declared straight away and in case of doubts investigations should not last longer than a month unless the reasons for the delay are clear and documented.

Someone in the past said that they always acted as if they had a CoI Policy already but it seems we needed to implement an actual one to get the right processes in place. I'm sure all directors will slowly adjust to the new procedures as they are eager to show they want to remove any doubts about potential conflicts of interest.

Feel free to suggest any improvements that will help streamlining the processes.

Cheers
Stephan

Ciao

Paolo

Hi *,

just a few thoughts, since I seem to be mentioned in the email. :wink:

Paolo Vecchi wrote:

> Sorry, Simon, but IMHO I don't think this is the right wording.
> PI and, if there are, resulting CoI's are clearly defined and written
> down in all the paperwork TDF has established and agreed to or in
> binding German laws.
> Not explaining a conflict, IMO, doesn't mean that it does not actually
> exist. Otherwise that would be too trivial.

I kind of side with Simon in the specific example of the investigation
against me in relation to LOOL.

I think that's a comment where perhaps we can start a constructive
discussion upon.

Stepping back and looking at the feedback from all corners, over the
past year on the topic - it seems that almost all sides are unhappy
about the way the CoI policy is applied (to them personally). Using
individual frustration as a stepping stone to iterate how we deal with
this (instead of fuel to fight) - wouldn't that be desirable?

I found it very odd that our chairman started the investigation
against me while he's the director of a company reselling LOOL's
fork and 3 others, 2 representing the vendor and 1 is his employee,
voted to start the investigation and spent a considerable amount of
time focusing on me without looking at their own position.

But here we are again, using perceived interests as a means to
de-legitimize or exclude.

So in a way a CoI could be "weaponised" by dragging on an
investigation for 3/4 months, I don't know when they actually
started it, to censor a director.

Paolo has not been censored, nor excluded.

Finally - Paolo Vecchi wrote:

It is a start which helps in refining standard procedures, which are
generally handled by you Stephan, so that all members of the board
follow their fiduciary duties by preparing for the meeting reading
and evaluating the relevant information so that they can also start
sending the list of their personal interests and avoid influencing
the relevant discussions/votes.

I'm glad people seem to generally like this addition to the board
meeting boilerplate (I had added the general affiliation update at the
start of this term, and the 'state my interests on the agenda' one
(after suggestions from Simon), at our Milano in-person meeting).

Thanks to Simon, therefore, for interacting constructively with an
otherwise sadly over-heated topic.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi all,

Hi *,

just a few thoughts, since I seem to be mentioned in the email. :wink:

Paolo Vecchi wrote:

Sorry, Simon, but IMHO I don't think this is the right wording.
PI and, if there are, resulting CoI's are clearly defined and written
down in all the paperwork TDF has established and agreed to or in
binding German laws.
Not explaining a conflict, IMO, doesn't mean that it does not actually
exist. Otherwise that would be too trivial.

I kind of side with Simon in the specific example of the investigation
against me in relation to LOOL.

I think that's a comment where perhaps we can start a constructive
discussion upon.

Stepping back and looking at the feedback from all corners, over the
past year on the topic - it seems that almost all sides are unhappy
about the way the CoI policy is applied (to them personally).

Actually I'm not unhappy not about the investigation itself. If it were well researched, used for events happened since the implementation of the policy and was discussed openly in public as requested then I'd have no issues with it.

I complained about non declaration of personal interests and influences from potentially conflicted members of the board several times as others did also on board-discuss. Potentially conflicted members of the board just dismissed my complaints.

eg. https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00745.html

Some might have had the feeling that the investigation against me was more a retaliatory action for my requests to look at what seemed to me obvious PIs than anything else.

I anyway welcome the investigation as at least it started the discussion.

  Using
individual frustration as a stepping stone to iterate how we deal with
this (instead of fuel to fight) - wouldn't that be desirable?

It would be desirable and that's why I proposed the adoption of a clear text listing our Fiduciary Duties to make it even easier for directors to recognise what they should do while performing their duties:

https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/FZKYSkyPZZfty5L

Maybe there is something there that could help in clarifying things?

I found it very odd that our chairman started the investigation
against me while he's the director of a company reselling LOOL's
fork and 3 others, 2 representing the vendor and 1 is his employee,
voted to start the investigation and spent a considerable amount of
time focusing on me without looking at their own position.

But here we are again, using perceived interests as a means to
de-legitimize or exclude.

If my company were a reseller of LOOL's fork then I would need to abstain from influencing decisions around LOOL as, IMHO, it would give out the impression that my decisions wouldn't be completely impartial.

So in a way a CoI could be "weaponised" by dragging on an
investigation for 3/4 months, I don't know when they actually
started it, to censor a director.

Paolo has not been censored, nor excluded.

At the last board meeting I've also stated that I couldn't talk about LOOL's future as I was being investigated about it and I recommended to the board not to talk about it until personal interests have been properly declared and evaluated.

Fortunately at LibOCon we didn't have to take decisions about LOOL or I would have had to leave the room and vote abstain if a vote was required.

Anyway it's nearly 2 months I'm waiting for a decision from the board about the investigation so I hope there will be a deliberation soon so we start clarifying my position and start looking at the position of other directors.

Finally - Paolo Vecchi wrote:

It is a start which helps in refining standard procedures, which are
generally handled by you Stephan, so that all members of the board
follow their fiduciary duties by preparing for the meeting reading
and evaluating the relevant information so that they can also start
sending the list of their personal interests and avoid influencing
the relevant discussions/votes.

I'm glad people seem to generally like this addition to the board
meeting boilerplate (I had added the general affiliation update at the
start of this term, and the 'state my interests on the agenda' one
(after suggestions from Simon), at our Milano in-person meeting).

Thanks to Simon, therefore, for interacting constructively with an
otherwise sadly over-heated topic.

Odd to learn now that all the requests for clear declarations from fellow members of the board have been ignored but accepted when the suggestion comes from outside the board.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Ciao

Paolo