 So, it's Q&A that the audience asked to raise their questions and hopefully we'll get the answers from the persons present for the Q&A. So it's up to you audience, please. Hey everyone, I hope you can hear and see me. Yeah, everything fine. So, who have the first question? I think there's a slight delay in the registration so I think we can break the ice in some other ways. There was a leftover question from a previous talk from Piyan. He was asking about democracy and how we are taking decisions inside the TDF. So maybe we can start from this topic. And the question was more on how to make this decision making a bit more open to the other members part of the project. Good question. She always depends on how much time one can spend in discussions that sometimes can be very hard and when you get more people involved in open discussions, sometimes it is necessary but sometimes it also takes more time. So to be honest, I have no answer on that, that you should do this or that in any situation. That's my personal experience anyway. What kind of decisions is Q&A worried about? So one of the things that interests me is how open we are in terms of the team's decisions for the Mays which is a lot of the day-to-day work by lots of the decisions that the TDF make are made by staff and team. Sorry, Mike. Sorry, Mike. You are a bit difficult to, your audio is not to reach here. It's impossible to understand me even if it is. So I wouldn't worry. But yeah, okay. Thanks. I was just saying that I think there are a lot of areas where decisions are made and hopefully decisions are made in a subsidiary way. So whoever is the expert asks whoever is interested. But this is the ideal if you know who is interested. But there are lots of meetings and things that occur that could open up more, I suspect, from staff through DFB through to whatever, you know, encourage people to get involved. Perhaps it's not just all about decisions. If I understand right, democracy or meritocracy is also made with contributions and discussions and giving the opinions and so on. Let me remember our in mind we have an activity a year ago for bringing in another tool for getting the community more in with a kind of social network or something like that. I don't know exactly the status of this project or this something, but this could be a step for it. You mean this Decidem platform? Decidem was a name, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, there apparently is no live yet. We should actually probably work a bit more on this. Yeah, I see. I think that was said. Sorry folks. I see raising the hand of Marina. Or was it a direct response? Yeah, it was a reply, maybe a clarification on the question I was resharing. I don't think that Guillem was concerned about a specific decision. I think the question was more in general on how we are discussing and deciding things that are driving a TDF in a direction or another. I think he was not just going on asking details for a particular topic. So I think what I'd like to highlight is what was said earlier that being transparent and being open is one side of the problem. And the other side is that it actually takes time to follow and inform oneself so something needs a number of people together. I don't think that's one group of people that can solve that. Of course, if one part of the group is not willing to solve it, then it's hard to impossible. Sorry, Marina, did you raise your hand again? Yeah, okay, fine. Always connected with this topic of transparency. Looking at the outcome of the community survey, there is a general demand of a better or increased transparency. I'm not saying that things were not improving with the last board. Definitely, I think it's good to... There was the positive feedback that it's great to have the minutes available, in particular for people that are not able to attend the board call. But still there are several... I have the notes in front of me and there are still several people asking for a more transparent decision when the topic is the general strategy, a roadmap, a vision for a project. And at the same time, they are also asking to avoid to fight in public because the comment is a shield the community from politics. And this one is the comment. So it's good to go public, to go transparent, but understanding when it's the time to just clarify things, not on the board discuss list or directly in public. It's an interesting statement. Sorry, I saw Lothar raising his hand. Okay, Lothar, it's your turn. Okay, so this is exactly the problem between transparency and decision making and discussing things. I think Ithalo made a great talk which incorporated a lot of things we are discussing and which is not always for an broader audience. We also have in mind that there are some market partners which are not so interested in having a good community. But certainly this is something where you can ever get better and certainly there must be a leadership from the board and there must be also the opportunity to be informed and to take part of the discussions which are going on, especially for the main streets or the main roads or how do you say to it, strategy, vision, mission and so on. Thank you, Lothar. So it's next is Michael raising his hand. Yes, I mean I think it's good to have transparency. Sorry, Michael, could you improve your audio? Yes, I don't know. If I saw the microphone at the health time, we had the place. So I think transparency is the right tension between transparency and the sausage machine of policy. And the board deals with a lot of difficult issues and with passion and has views from all across the spectrum. And I think that can be upsetting to people. You don't realise that everyone is on the same team at some level and they just really disagree. And so if you don't want to see conflict, then you don't want everything to be transparent or you want a puppet pretend play government that isn't a real discussion, I think. But I think there is a tension there. And we've tried to be more transparent and have a more public conflict, I think, visible. I don't know if that's good for the project. I don't know. Thank you, Michael. Next is again, Marina. Your hand. Thank you. Yeah, as I was saying, there are really positive comments on the improvement done on the transparency. But sometimes I know that we are all human and it's not easy sometimes when the discussion is getting with a bit of tension to just calm down and take a breath before throwing out the next email. But sometimes there are really too many discussions going on or discuss that are not with a tone that can help. But in particular, if the reader is not really aware of how it works and which are the people involved and why maybe one person can be triggered by someone else and so on. So in that case, maybe that's the way to the usual 10 seconds before pressing the sand that usually can help. Thank you, Marina. Next will be Torsten and afterwards Emiliano, please. And then Core, I see. So it's Torsten Emiliano-Core. Thanks a lot. I think the transparency doesn't mean that you can see the entirety of the source of the machine. Transparency usually just means that you see how a decision, how decisions come to pass, like what inputs are there and then how the decision is made and then transparently explaining the decision. That doesn't mean that the entirety of the internal discussion has to be in public, my hope is that that solves the problem, that the decision process, what's happening, the agenda, what are we talking about, that this is public and transparent and the internal perhaps discussions where it's a bit more heated. I think it's worth having that not in public. If you, as somebody listening and being interested in even more transparency, I think there's a board election coming up. So that will be the unique opportunity to have the full transparency just to join the board and the decision making there. And of course the hope is that with the diverse board that we have or that everybody in the community has somebody who's representing you on the board level and some amount of trust that your interests are represented there. And as long as it's clear what the board is talking about and deciding about then poking your representative and the person you trust on the board and asking for input or clarification, I think from my perspective will be the perfect balance. Okay, thank you. So next will be Emiliano, as I said, and then Core and I get the information that also Björn raised his hand. So it's Emiliano, Core and Björn, please. Thank you very much. I would like just to point out a detail which is the transparency asking is not directly opposite to the shielding of the politics because if I read the better the comment that triggered the shielding of the politics out of the discourses was referring to a developing environment which is part of our community and not the whole bunch. So maybe we should try to understand why and where we need to be more transparent and less transparent if any. So that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you Emiliano. So next please, Core. Yeah, thanks Emiliano also for what you said because indeed one of my questions was talking about transparency. Is it about concern that you really miss something about decisions that you say that you really wonder what's going on here? Why? Or is it about general interest being concerned in how the whole policymaking is going? That's one thing. And the other thing is what I hear in Italo's talk was some clear explanation of let's say the unique position of our foundation, our community which brings in a lot of different people with different background, with different interests. And at one side it creates strength but on the other side that's about how Michael and Thorsen said the source it's making. The process of getting compromises will then be presented as a decision that's sometimes a tough one where we need to think another 10 seconds maybe and sometimes you get to pressurize and start whatever. So it's all in all it's interesting. So anyone who said standard for the board if you have some good spirit and ideas I think that's available. Thank you, Core. So next will be Björn. As I said then it's Lothar afterwards. I think Björn was just raising the hand for us here. And Björn you want to say something? What a Hamburg connection community. Okay, so go on please. Okay, but it would be nice to hear him. Yeah, do we not make the same thought now and just talking between us? Sorry, I thought Hamburg was going to sing a song for us, the whole Hamburg team or Thorsen. Well, let's have this happening at the end. Oh, sorry. Some other question for the board or for the sea or something like this. I think Lothar, you are next. You raised your hand, isn't it? My comment was not to do the same as we are usually to discuss between us so long. Perhaps there's another comment or question. Perhaps another item from the really good survey. I didn't see the answer up to now. Okay, thank you Lothar. Are there any more questions, answers, comments? Marina? It's me again. Yeah, welcome. Just saying that we got some critics or some points where we should reflect a bit on but we also got some really good and positive advices on where the community would like to see activities done. There are even some good ideas that are just planned or in general that are ongoing actually. So it's also good to get the confirmation that on some topics, at least on some topics, the community seems to follow what the board is trying to achieve. It's not everything negative, please don't get me wrong. Absolutely. There are some interesting news in this how come from this survey but it's probably something that we need to digest together with a bit of time. Okay, thank you Marina. So who is next to have some comment? So there was an update from Guy on the chat, I think. Just let me have a look. I just see that it went for a coffee but that's not a very important thing. It was also a very calm matrix. Let me read it out, I have it straight on the screen. So Gilliam is writing, it's perhaps the board and MC response to my question but for what it's worth, my question wasn't about the criticism of lack of transparency but rather how to grow democratic participation, the vote percentage number of candidates, the membership base but he appreciates debates anyway. So he asked how can we grow the participation in our democratic processes. So we were afraid of being criticized. It's interesting, you always hear what you want to hear. I think it's been pretty much since the first board election I think overall the percentage of board and MCs is going down and it's perhaps indeed something that we should ask ourselves how to improve that. Marina, do you remember from the last board election? I have trust in Michael next one and then maybe Marina. Michael? Sorry, I think we're doing some useful things here. What you might think is that the square roots of the number of people in your membership are actually engaged with your process. So we need to multiply our membership significantly not by signing up our friends and family, but that might be a good idea, but by getting people to contribute more. So I'm really encouraged to see Hussain arriving as a dev mentor and growing our community. The more we can do to grow our community, I think the more engaged people we would have. So I think there's a short answer to that and I think it's normal that people are disengaged generally. We should be doing something crazily controversial. Okay, thank you Michael. Next will be Marina again. Thanks for raising your hand. Yeah, so it's not the first time we are having this discussion Michael and let me just be clear. With growing our members, I never meant just to go in front of a supermarket and ask people to join TDF. Absolutely no. The point is that we need to have a board of trustee that is aware of what is TDF and what we are doing with the foundation. So something that probably we could try to think about is to prepare those members, those members of the board of trustee to grow over the time in a way that then maybe they can also be ready for running for the MC, for the board without having this I'm getting a train in the face effect when you discover what is behind sitting on a chair that is in the board or in the MC because there's really a lot that is happening behind the scenes for driving the foundation and I'm not talking about lack of transparency, just a lot of work that is done silently and that should be advertised a bit more for preparing the people that then could replace us. I mean, I don't want to be in the MC forever. Sooner or later I would like just to be a normal contributor but yeah, it's important to prepare the others to be ready. So yeah, thank you Marina. Then I get a question from Cisco. I read on the chat. So let me get to this one. Oh, where did I find it? Yeah, that was the question from Cisco. From your experience in the board, what would be your advice for the first time? Time and passion. That's a very quick and short answer. Thank you. So next one will be Hamburg again as I see and then there should be Emiliano and Paolo if possible. Thank you. Hamburg, Trosten? I think they are experiencing some issues with the connection at the moment. Okay, then it's up to you Emiliano. The next one. So thank you very much. If Hamburg comes online, please raise your hand. I'll try to pass again the words. So I would like just to add is that Michael is right. Probably a good pressure to have new people and new contributions to the governance of TDF is going through increasing the membership and increasing people that wants to be a member. On the other hand, I liked very much the answer that Marina did because to be honest, I was for the first time in the board this term and I felt like invested by train or something like that at some moment in time. So there is really a lot of work behind that and I think everyone of our members should be prepared to know that usually what the board means and thoughts by a whole is not always what. The single things and also is not what the whole community thinks. So that's another point to underline and to share so there should be maybe a little more attention on boarding people inside TDF and its governance. So I don't see the situation being better in Hamburg so I think I'll get back to Stefan. Thank you. Yeah, thanks Emiliano for your statement. I have now next to be Paolo and then Michael. Hello. Please have a look on the clock. Maybe it's not over yet, but we have not a lot of time. I'll be quite quick because then practically Emiliano said what I wanted to say as a first time member of the board there's been a lot of work to be done for myself to actually understand what was going on, how to take decision and also get all the background information that are needed to take those decisions. So one of the things that actually I had to do is practically to reread all the minutes, all the documents available to understand, okay, can I make this decision knowing exactly what I'm talking about? So that is a pretty hard work. So probably there should be much better documentation regarding previous decision of background information so that new members will be available to actually get up to speed a bit faster. And I'll talk a bit, if you are passionate about something you know, don't be shy, scream, argue. You want to just, you know, keep your ideals and your idea of what the DF should be and liberality should be at the top level. So compromising is okay, but push as much as you can. That's my advice. Thank you very much, Paolo. And now it's Michael, please. Just to sort of partly agree with that and turn it on its head, I think we live in an era where the politics is heavily polarized and people love to demonize their opponents and not listen to them and come up with, you know, two-dimensional caricatures and beat them in public. And I think we all suffer from this and actually one of the key skills of the board member is working with other people and trying to be moderate and adopt the middle part and compromise. So, you know, practice saying something really moderate, you know, pick one of these culture walls and then say, well, those guys have something to say, but you know, there is also something to say on the other side, you know, and then maybe, you know, form a view in the middle. That would be my tip for things that's needed in the board. Thank you, Michael. And then we have, I think, Hamburg, Trosten. Okay, let me try if you can hear me now. Yeah, that's great. Great. Sorry for that. Right. So I think I broadly agree with almost everybody before because we were all touching just different aspects of that story and it's, I mean, there's a chance we're talking cross-purpose. I don't think so. I think we're just addressing the problem from different angles. What I was saying earlier, and I would like to repeat that is that before we invest heavily into having millions of additional members, perhaps one of the first things we as TDF and especially we as a board perhaps should do is ask ourselves if pretty much the only right that the member has is to vote for a membership committee and to vote for the board of directors. And then like less than two thirds of the group of people who actually applied for membership and actually participate in the vote, what is the problem? And that's probably the first thing that I would try to figure out. And I don't know if the survey has any input whether people are just frustrated by politics and therefore don't vote and otherwise use the membership because they want to associate themselves with TDF but more strongly or what is behind that. Okay. Thank you very much, Thorsten, for this statement. And thank you to you all for this debate. It was very interesting, this exchange of statements, opinions, and debating about this.