The Document Foundation Removes Senior LibreOffice Developers Over Conflict‑of‑Interest Claims

1. What Exactly Happened?

On April 3 2026, the TDF board announced the removal of a cohort of its most prolific core developers from the LibreOffice project. The decision was presented as a response to “conflict‑of‑interest” concerns, with the board stating that the individuals “made decisions in the interest of their employers rather than in the interest of The Document Foundation.”

The ejected group includes:

• Caolán McNamara – ~37 k commits over 25 years
• Stephan Bergmann – 21 k+ commits
• Noel Grandin – 20 k+ commits
• Miklos Vajna, Tor Lillqvist, Michael Stahl, and several other senior contributors

For the full original announcement, see the original article.

2. Why Did TDF Cite Conflict‑of‑Interest?

The board’s Membership Committee argued that the developers’ primary employment (largely at Collabora) could bias technical decisions, potentially steering LibreOffice toward corporate agendas. While conflict‑of‑interest policies are common in open‑source foundations, critics argue that the policy was applied selectively and without transparent evidence.

In practice, many of the removed contributors also acted as mentors, reviewers, and community organizers—roles that are not easily quantified by a simple “employer‑bias” metric.

3. Underlying Governance Problems

The ejection cannot be understood in isolation; it reflects a broader shift in TDF’s board composition:

Key governance concerns include:

• Declining coder representation, leaving technical expertise under‑represented in strategic decisions.
• The “rump” board has overstayed its elected term, contravening TDF statutes that limit board tenure.
• Three directors are directly employed by TDF staff, creating a potential conflict of interest with the foundation’s mission.
• No corporate‑affiliated board member since 2022, reducing business‑experience input.
• Accusations of electoral gerrymandering and opaque voting processes.

For a comparative look at transparent governance, see the UBOS platform overview, which openly publishes board composition and decision logs.

4. How the Community Responded

Michael Meeks, senior engineer at Collabora, called the move “a pre‑planned power grab by the board majority.” He highlighted the emotional impact of being removed without a single thank‑you or apology.

“After 15+ years of service, being ejected without gratitude is unconscionable. The board’s fear of accountability appears to be the real driver.”

Developers posted public gratitude messages on social media, and many urged volunteers to join Collabora Office, which continues to maintain a fork of LibreOffice.

Collabora has opened an invitation for new contributors on the Matrix channel #cool‑dev. The channel now serves as a hub for onboarding, mentorship, and code reviews.

5. The Numbers Behind the Names

The removed developers are not just “volunteers”; they are the technical backbone of LibreOffice.

Beyond raw commits, these developers performed code reviews, mentored newcomers, and authored extensive documentation—activities that are invisible in Git statistics but vital for project health.

6. What This Means for the Future of LibreOffice

Meritocracy vs. Equality – The incident spotlights a tension between a merit‑based contribution model and a board that appears to prioritize “equality” of representation over technical expertise. When governance leans too far toward equality without merit, projects risk losing the very talent that drives innovation.

Corporate‑Backed Contributors – The ejection underscores the uneasy relationship between corporate‑backed contributors (like Collabora) and a “pure” foundation board. While corporate backing can bring resources, it also raises questions about influence.

Development Velocity – Losing the top 5% of committers could slow release cycles, increase bug backlog, and reduce the speed of new feature integration. The community will need to fill the gap quickly to avoid a noticeable slowdown.

For a contrasting example of a thriving ecosystem that balances open contribution with clear governance, see how AI marketing agents are built on a transparent partner program and a well‑documented API.

7. Next Steps and How You Can Help

Collabora has announced a refocus on its own LibreOffice‑based suite, promising continued support for the core codebase. Meanwhile, the broader community can take concrete actions:

1. Join the #cool‑dev Matrix channel to receive mentorship and task assignments.
2. Contribute code or documentation via the official LibreOffice GitLab instance.
3. Participate in upcoming board elections and push for a balanced coder representation.
4. Leverage existing UBOS tools—such as the Web app editor on UBOS—to prototype new LibreOffice extensions.
5. Explore the Workflow automation studio to automate repetitive testing tasks.

New contributors can also experiment with ready‑made AI templates that showcase how open‑source projects can benefit from generative AI. A few standout templates include:

• AI SEO Analyzer – helps developers optimize documentation for search engines.
• AI Article Copywriter – generates draft release notes automatically.
• AI Video Generator – creates tutorial videos from code snippets.
• AI Image Generator – produces UI mock‑ups for new LibreOffice features.
• AI Chatbot template – can be repurposed as an interactive help bot inside LibreOffice.
• AI Survey Generator – gathers community feedback on upcoming changes.
• AI YouTube Comment Analysis tool – monitors sentiment around LibreOffice video tutorials.

These templates illustrate how a vibrant marketplace can coexist with a robust open‑source core, provided governance remains inclusive and merit‑driven.

8. Looking Forward: Governance Reform and Community Resilience

Stakeholders are calling for immediate reforms:

• Introduce term limits and enforce board‑member rotation to prevent “rump” board stagnation.
• Mandate a minimum quota of active coders on the board, similar to the model described on the About UBOS page.
• Publish conflict‑of‑interest disclosures for all board members and senior contributors.
• Adopt a transparent voting system with third‑party audit, akin to the UBOS partner program verification process.

Until such reforms materialize, the health of LibreOffice will depend on the community’s willingness to step up, share knowledge, and maintain the codebase with the same rigor that the ejected developers demonstrated for decades.