Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2023 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi all,

it seems like unfortunately misleading information are being sent out by a fellow member of the board.

On 26/05/2023 15:05, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hi all,

Paolo Vecchi wrote on 26/05/2023 11:07:

I'm writing here to discuss the actions of members of the Board against another Director (myself).

Fact: five directors and a deputy were shocked by the behavior of one director

I doubt that's the case as five directors and a deputy should be fully aware of the situation and that the vote in question must be revoked as it has been commented here by several members of the community:

who, in his inability to accept board procedures

The procedures that are written here and you refused to follow?

"Decisions regarding the rules of procedure are made according to § 9 of the statutes. Drafts of amended rules, or the intent to cancel them in entirety, need to be made available at least one week in advance."

Even our chairman pretended to have the simple change adding the line for the Conflict of Interests Policy published as the community should check and comment in case "something weird was going on".

I tried in all possible ways to make the board realise of the mistake they were making and the issues they were creating.

and his inability to accept that his opinion is not always right,

I form my opinions by looking at data and facts to try being wrong fewer times than others.

decided to (again) disclose legal correspondence in the open.

What I reported was not legal correspondence.

The quotes reported simply confirm what has been reported in public before receiving an answer from our lawyer.

There is no privileged or sensitive information reported in the vote and reporting that the our lawyer confirms the conclusions reached by board members, which were already public or will be made public shortly (eg. the vote in which CoIs have been ignored), does not amount to disclosing legal correspondence.

Paolo is making things up.

That's a gratuitous insult which I suppose should be evaluated in relation to our Code of Conduct Policy.

He never stops pushing his way, up to disclosing legal stuff (again) and more.

You could call it "pushing his way" but it is my duty to try to stop other board members to make mistakes.

Mistakes were clear but you and Thorsten decided to "push your way" regardless.

Our lawyer just confirmed the obvious mistakes you were making that you were refusing to acknowledge.

Once again, the "legal stuff" isn't much else than a confirmation of what is already in the public domain.

There is no way to discuss legal matters in the open

We extensively discussed legal matters in public in the past, Eg: you presented your idea that even while in conflict of interests you should be able to influence discussions and decision and then vote abstain. Many others, including myself, disagree and presented many examples where what you stated does not fit with the general understanding of how CoIs should be dealt with.

Now if you want to selectively avoid talking about mistakes you made labelling them "legal stuff" then you could have looked objectively at the issue you were creating accept that your proposal should have been looked at by our legal counsel as I asked. We would have saved a lot of time and would have avoided to go public with a vote which creates embarrassment for the board and unnecessary discussions.

. As such the measure was needed (due to past form), and rather low/proportionate as he can still post answers.

The measure wasn't needed as the vote doesn't mention anything that isn't already known. It just reports confirmations from our lawyer.

He did sent exactly the same text as here to the tdf-internal@ list where members can subscribe and discuss*. I have replied more in detail there.

But the replies just go around in circles trying to distract people from the simple facts that the vote I sent out, which contain no privileged legal information, while performing my duty as a member of the board has been deleted. The way things have been done and the continuous rejection of evidence just make it look like a retaliatory action for having pointed out that the vote is wrong and for having pretended to have it checked by our lawyer.

Please also consider to ask the Board of Directors to revert the changes they made to the Board Discuss forum. They limit the right of expression not only to a specific board member, but also to the rest of the community, because nobody can send messages there anymore without moderation.

Only creating of topics on Board-Discuss is limited.

And I'm barred from creating a new topic to reinstate the legitimate vote that has been deleted.

On Discourse, that was the mildest way to achieve the necessary results, in combination with revoking moderator rights. We didn't want to silence/remove Paolo.

Against all evidence you state "Paolo is making things up." and against the evidence that a legitimate vote has been deleted and that I can't create new posts for 3 weeks and that our chairman told me I can run the vote again but only in directors private list, while RoP changes must be discussed in public, "you don't want to silence" me. That doesn't sound right at all.

I didn't sign up as a board member to be a silent accomplice of wrongdoings.

That would be the only other way to control this in Discourse, AFAIK.

Any director or member of the staff could have helped in moderating a post to ask for amendments if there was actually something wrong with that vote.

It is clear that the choice made had the purpose of eliminate an inconvenient vote for some and silence a member of the board that is not aligned with what you want.




*) new members are always invited to subscribe to this mailing list at

Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Winterfeldtstraße 52, 10781 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.