3 ms·

For those of us with zero context, what's the story here?

by chadash 6mo ago

replooda 6mo ago
I'd go for the discussion on Meeks' post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47599305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47599305
eisa01 6mo ago
Not sure myself, it seems like some of the founders were kicked out in 2025 for "misuse of funds" according to the auditor of TDF / or the Foundation authorities? https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/well-known-high-contributors-were-removed/12618/20 https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/well-known-high-c... Also found this in the annual report, sounds quite serious: > In 2023, following a request by the Foundation Authorities in Berlin, given the size our foundation has grown into over the last decade, TDF was audited, and a report was sent back to Berlin. The Board of Directors is working with the authorities to implement the improvements suggested by the audit https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/fsqeJZrAtXeR7JD?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/fsqeJZrAtXeR7JD?d... Would be helpful if the blog post was more clear about this
- mschuster91 6mo ago
  Yikes. They set up the foundation in Berlin, Germany? A country well known for its braindead tax laws and bureaucracy, particularly when it comes to NGOs?
  - janice1999 6mo ago
    There are plenty of non-profit software projects headquartered in Berlin, e.g. KDE since 1997, and they seem to do just fine.
    - mschuster91 6mo ago
      Yeah because they went into existence way before the bureaucracy became a nightmare and have had ample time to evolve with the legal landscape.
  - mhitza 6mo ago
    It's stated as conflict of interest, not some bureaucracy. Things are still vague, due to some legal liability, probably. Sounds to me like for some grants/tenders received by the non-profit were contracted out to Collabora. Which in turn, profits from the base project.
WhyNotHugo 6mo ago
Based on the article: Some founders/directors kept using money from the foundation to pay their own private companies to get work done. This is highly irregular: you can’t manage funds that aren’t yours and use those funds to buy from a company which gives you profit. Legal council warned the of this irregularity, and nothing was made to change the status quo during years.
- shevy-java 6mo ago
  Isn't this theft, if true?
  - worik 6mo ago
    No. They did the work. It is a corrupt practice, not theft
  - blm126 6mo ago
    I wouldn't call it theft, exactly. Presumably work did get done. If I'm reading it right, its just a terrible conflict of interest. The board uses donations to pay companies to work on LibreOffice. That seems totally fine. Some of the board were running/part of companies that rely and work on LibreOffice. That also seems mostly fine? You want your board to represent your community. Then, those same board members directed work towards their companies. That's definitely a conflict of interest, but I wouldn't call it theft unless you prove the foundation was getting a bad deal. Could the foundation have gotten the work done better or cheaper hiring non-represented companies? That's the question you have to answer to call this theft. It doesn't seem that is really what the foundation is arguing though, so I'm guessing it wasn't that bad. It seems more their argument is that this violates the non-profit laws they operate under.
    - overfeed 6mo ago
      > Some of the board were running/part of companies that rely and work on LibreOffice. That also seems mostly fine? Those board members were elected by foundation members who also work for Collabora, so it was a privilege escalation from contributors to (controlling?) foundation board seats
fallinditch 6mo ago
It's poorly written, perhaps aimed at people already in the loop - would benefit from an AI edit.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

For those of us with zero context, what's the story here?

by chadash 6mo ago

For those of us with zero context, what's the story here?

I'd go for the discussion on Meeks' post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47599305 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47599305

eisa01 6mo ago

Not sure myself, it seems like some of the founders were kicked out in 2025 for "misuse of funds" according to the auditor of TDF / or the Foundation authorities? https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/well-known-high-contributors-were-removed/12618/20 https://community.documentfoundation.org/t/well-known-high-c... Also found this in the annual report, sounds quite serious: > In 2023, following a request by the Foundation Authorities in Berlin, given the size our foundation has grown into over the last decade, TDF was audited, and a report was sent back to Berlin. The Board of Directors is working with the authorities to implement the improvements suggested by the audit https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/fsqeJZrAtXeR7JD?dir=/&editing=false&openfile=true https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/s/fsqeJZrAtXeR7JD?d... Would be helpful if the blog post was more clear about this

mschuster91 6mo ago
Yikes. They set up the foundation in Berlin, Germany? A country well known for its braindead tax laws and bureaucracy, particularly when it comes to NGOs?
- janice1999 6mo ago
  There are plenty of non-profit software projects headquartered in Berlin, e.g. KDE since 1997, and they seem to do just fine.
  - mschuster91 6mo ago
    Yeah because they went into existence way before the bureaucracy became a nightmare and have had ample time to evolve with the legal landscape.
- mhitza 6mo ago
  It's stated as conflict of interest, not some bureaucracy. Things are still vague, due to some legal liability, probably. Sounds to me like for some grants/tenders received by the non-profit were contracted out to Collabora. Which in turn, profits from the base project.

WhyNotHugo 6mo ago

Based on the article: Some founders/directors kept using money from the foundation to pay their own private companies to get work done. This is highly irregular: you can’t manage funds that aren’t yours and use those funds to buy from a company which gives you profit. Legal council warned the of this irregularity, and nothing was made to change the status quo during years.

shevy-java 6mo ago
Isn't this theft, if true?
- worik 6mo ago
  No. They did the work. It is a corrupt practice, not theft
- blm126 6mo ago
  I wouldn't call it theft, exactly. Presumably work did get done. If I'm reading it right, its just a terrible conflict of interest. The board uses donations to pay companies to work on LibreOffice. That seems totally fine. Some of the board were running/part of companies that rely and work on LibreOffice. That also seems mostly fine? You want your board to represent your community. Then, those same board members directed work towards their companies. That's definitely a conflict of interest, but I wouldn't call it theft unless you prove the foundation was getting a bad deal. Could the foundation have gotten the work done better or cheaper hiring non-represented companies? That's the question you have to answer to call this theft. It doesn't seem that is really what the foundation is arguing though, so I'm guessing it wasn't that bad. It seems more their argument is that this violates the non-profit laws they operate under.
  - overfeed 6mo ago
    > Some of the board were running/part of companies that rely and work on LibreOffice. That also seems mostly fine? Those board members were elected by foundation members who also work for Collabora, so it was a privilege escalation from contributors to (controlling?) foundation board seats

fallinditch 6mo ago

It's poorly written, perhaps aimed at people already in the loop - would benefit from an AI edit.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]