Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
2014-10-24 9:20 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman : > On Oct 23, 2014, at 03:00 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I think it is reasonable postpone elections for three months considering > current turmoil. > > Leaving aside any question about the merits of this, I don't believe it is > possible. Notice has been given of the AGM, and an election must be held at > the AGM (AOA 31). Frederik showed a way to make this possible. See thread "Postponing elections, or other alternatives (Was: Modus operandi of the board)" The merits would be - among others - 1. to let calm down things, 2. to give OSMF electors a chance to inform themselves about the candidates and 3. to give those candidates a chance to answer the questions raised here [1]. Yours, S. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM14/Election_to_Board 2014-10-24 9:20 GMT+02:00 Paul Norman : > On Oct 23, 2014, at 03:00 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I think it is reasonable postpone elections for three months considering > current turmoil. > > Leaving aside any question about the merits of this, I don't believe it is > possible. Notice has been given of the AGM, and an election must be held at > the AGM (AOA 31). > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On Oct 23, 2014, at 03:00 PM, Clifford Snow wrote: I think it is reasonable postpone elections for three months considering current turmoil. Leaving aside any question about the merits of this, I don't believe it is possible. Notice has been given of the AGM, and an election must be held at the AGM (AOA 31). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Kathleen Danielson < kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote: > What if we had some sort of compromise, and we asked the membership if we > could hold another AGM in 3 months, followed 2 weeks (or so) later by an > election? We've already talked about decoupling it from SOTM, and given > what a global project it is, it's unrealistic to expect a majority of > voting members to be able to attend SOTM. I haven't checked the bylaws, but > I would guess there's no rule against having *more* than one AGM per year. > OSM-US has started holding our AGMs remotely. I'm sure other groups do as > well. > > If we did a 3 month time scale, we still wouldn't be making rash > decisions, but we would have more chance of maintaining the momentum we've > seen over the past month or so. The current board could also focus energy > on preparing things so that there can be a smooth transition, even if there > is high turnover in the board. > I think it is reasonable postpone elections for three months considering current turmoil. With apologies to those that submitted their name in a timely fashion, let's ask for more candidates. We should also expect them to answer questions from the community. And as Richard said, maybe it the time for the rest of the Board to step down. They are more than welcome to submit their name for re-election. It appears to this outsider that not all Board members have been "present." The new Board should take up a strategy to prevent burnout. As anyone who has ever served on a board, it is a tireless job with people constantly complaining about your decisions. At the same time, Board members need to step down if they can continue to actively participate. If they don't the Board needs to ask for their resignation. There has also been derogatory comments made about Steve. While only have playing with OSM for the past three years, I've known Steve that entire time. He has been an energetic supporter of OSM. Hurricane and Steve started and actively participated in the Seattle Meetup Group, which is one of the more successful groups in the US. Steve even led by example. He walked the streets in my neighborhood to prove that addresses don't have to come from imports. Of course it turned out we were too lazy and decided on an import instead. I can't speak to the "old" Steve, but my experiences for the past three years have been nothing but positive. (and no I didn't join Map Club.) Lastly, I'd like to remind everyone that the Board works for us. We should expect them to get our input before changing directions. As Kate has proposed, the Board should annually survey the community to get our input. As much as I respect Steve, if he get elected, even he needs consult with the community before setting goals. And we the community needs to hold the Board accountable to us. I'd like to propose that the new Board survey the community annually. We should also expect them to build a vision for OSM. While it appears that our current mission statement was constructed by the board, the vision statement needs to be developed by the community with the Board acting as a facilitator. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Kate 2014-10-23 16:37 GMT+02:00 Kate Chapman wrote: > Perhaps the issues in the board is a lack of respect for each other. I don't see any disrespect from Simon when he referred to you speaking about you (and others) wishing to see more OSMF members. On the other hand I assume that you are aware that your accusation to Simon is explicit and sidetracks this thread. I'd love to come back to your suggestions - as far as I can follow you - and to questions raised before I don't see any statements so far: * I don't see any evidence that the OSMF is fundamentally broken. * And I don't see enough reasons why the full board should step down (not speaking about the lack of alternatives and bad timing) * Of course community should be involved - but there are enough items now on the agenda Frederik suggested (and I summarized above) which simply need to be put on the boards agenda. * Given board members are coming from several continents, I don't see why the board should meet face-to-face when there exist video meeting facilities. * On the other hand I'd like to really know what you (and others) think about Frederik's points raised in his manifesto as well as these questions to the board members: [1]. Yours, Stefan [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM14/Election_to_Board 2014-10-23 16:37 GMT+02:00 Kate Chapman : > Hi Simon > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Simon Poole wrote: >> >> >> Kate was complaining about the on boarding of new board members, she got >> at least an order of magnitude more support than Frederik and myself >> did, I don't think that there is any -accessible- board related >> institutional memory of note that is tied to board members. I do have to >> point to and thank Andy Robinson for his support in providing filing and >> mail services to the foundation for a very long time. > > > I suggest you rethink your choice of words about me "complaining". I was > suggesting there are better ways to onboard people to the board. Frankly I > was fine with my on boarding, simply because I've served on other boards > before so I understand generally how it works. That is not the case for > everyone else who becomes part of the OSMF Foundation board. > > Perhaps the issues in the board is a lack of respect for each other. > > -Kate >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Sorry for sounding like a broken record to some: there are no EGMs or AGMs any more under UK law, there are simply general meetings, there is not even a requirement to have any at all (that is why we are suggesting adding such a clause to the articles at the GM in Argentina) and you could just as well have one on 365 days of the year. The board could realistically schedule a GM with or without elections in March or April, remote participation is possible since last year so there are multiple ways to participate. Obviously this depends on the board actually agreeing to do so except if you want to require one via the mechanics of a request by the members (needs 5% of the regular members). As I've pointed out there are other reasons to disassociate the meeting from SOTM in any case so I wouldn't expect much resistance. Simon Am 23.10.2014 17:23, schrieb Kathleen Danielson: > Sorry-- looks like I forgot to copy the whole list. > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kathleen Danielson > mailto:kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > Hi Frederik, > > You've got a few really interesting ideas in here. Some quick > questions: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Frederik Ramm > mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing > board > > members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a > clean start. > > A radical step, but I like it. I'd be more than happy to > withdraw my > candidacy if there was a spirit of rebooting. We wouldn't even > need > seven new candidates; we could simply elect a few and they > could then > add new un-elected board members as they like (article 79 in > the AoA). > > > I really like this idea, although, as I acknowledged earlier, I > definitely know there are some challenges. > > > > > Instead of rushing through such an unprecedented measure, we > could also > do it in a more orderly fashion: Have this year's AGM decide > that the > board should prepare to resign altogether at the next AGM, and > prepare > the election of a full new board. This event would then be > known long in > advance and people would have time to prepare their bids for a > seat on > the rebooted body. Independent of the actual legal powers of > the AGM, > certainly no board member could ignore such an express > declaration by > the very people they're serving. > > > What if we had some sort of compromise, and we asked the > membership if we could hold another AGM in 3 months, followed 2 > weeks (or so) later by an election? We've already talked about > decoupling it from SOTM, and given what a global project it is, > it's unrealistic to expect a majority of voting members to be able > to attend SOTM. I haven't checked the bylaws, but I would guess > there's no rule against having *more* than one AGM per year. > OSM-US has started holding our AGMs remotely. I'm sure other > groups do as well. > > If we did a 3 month time scale, we still wouldn't be making rash > decisions, but we would have more chance of maintaining the > momentum we've seen over the past month or so. The current board > could also focus energy on preparing things so that there can be a > smooth transition, even if there is high turnover in the board. > > > > Another thing, while we're throwing doors wide open. In many > political > systems around the world, the electorate doesn't elect a group > of people > with wildly different goals. Instead, people form parties and the > electorate decides for a party, and the party will then form the > government. (Grossly simplifying, I know.) That way, people in > government have to fight each other to a much lesser degree > than they > would if government were comprised of people following different > political views and goals. > > By appointing seven directors individually, on the one hand we > have the > advantage that they can keep each other in check; we, as the > electorate, > don't have to be super careful, if we elect someone who's > incompetent or > a kleptomaniac, the others on the board will hopefully notice > and fix it > somehow. On the other hand, there's the danger of seeding the > board with > a couple of difficult personalities that make life hard and reduce > productiveness for the rest of them. > > Should we perhaps vote for "teams"? Just like a team can > assemble and > bid for holding a SotM, should we allow a team to bid for
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Sorry-- looks like I forgot to copy the whole list. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kathleen Danielson < kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Frederik, > > You've got a few really interesting ideas in here. Some quick questions: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> > Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing board >> > members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a clean start. >> >> A radical step, but I like it. I'd be more than happy to withdraw my >> candidacy if there was a spirit of rebooting. We wouldn't even need >> seven new candidates; we could simply elect a few and they could then >> add new un-elected board members as they like (article 79 in the AoA). >> > > I really like this idea, although, as I acknowledged earlier, I definitely > know there are some challenges. > > > >> >> Instead of rushing through such an unprecedented measure, we could also >> do it in a more orderly fashion: Have this year's AGM decide that the >> board should prepare to resign altogether at the next AGM, and prepare >> the election of a full new board. This event would then be known long in >> advance and people would have time to prepare their bids for a seat on >> the rebooted body. Independent of the actual legal powers of the AGM, >> certainly no board member could ignore such an express declaration by >> the very people they're serving. >> > > What if we had some sort of compromise, and we asked the membership if we > could hold another AGM in 3 months, followed 2 weeks (or so) later by an > election? We've already talked about decoupling it from SOTM, and given > what a global project it is, it's unrealistic to expect a majority of > voting members to be able to attend SOTM. I haven't checked the bylaws, but > I would guess there's no rule against having *more* than one AGM per year. > OSM-US has started holding our AGMs remotely. I'm sure other groups do as > well. > > If we did a 3 month time scale, we still wouldn't be making rash > decisions, but we would have more chance of maintaining the momentum we've > seen over the past month or so. The current board could also focus energy > on preparing things so that there can be a smooth transition, even if there > is high turnover in the board. > > >> >> Another thing, while we're throwing doors wide open. In many political >> systems around the world, the electorate doesn't elect a group of people >> with wildly different goals. Instead, people form parties and the >> electorate decides for a party, and the party will then form the >> government. (Grossly simplifying, I know.) That way, people in >> government have to fight each other to a much lesser degree than they >> would if government were comprised of people following different >> political views and goals. >> >> By appointing seven directors individually, on the one hand we have the >> advantage that they can keep each other in check; we, as the electorate, >> don't have to be super careful, if we elect someone who's incompetent or >> a kleptomaniac, the others on the board will hopefully notice and fix it >> somehow. On the other hand, there's the danger of seeding the board with >> a couple of difficult personalities that make life hard and reduce >> productiveness for the rest of them. >> >> Should we perhaps vote for "teams"? Just like a team can assemble and >> bid for holding a SotM, should we allow a team to bid for being the OSMF >> board for a year? >> > > This is a really fun idea. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but I LOVE the > creative thinking for the organization of OSMF. > > > >> >> Bye >> Frederik >> >> -- >> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Frederik, I like this idea of having the mandate to redesign how the board works. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing board > > members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a clean start. > > A radical step, but I like it. I'd be more than happy to withdraw my > candidacy if there was a spirit of rebooting. We wouldn't even need > seven new candidates; we could simply elect a few and they could then > add new un-elected board members as they like (article 79 in the AoA). > Interesting, the idea of maybe people elect who they think is best qualified to reboot how the board rather than just someone they generally agree with. > > Instead of rushing through such an unprecedented measure, we could also > do it in a more orderly fashion: Have this year's AGM decide that the > board should prepare to resign altogether at the next AGM, and prepare > the election of a full new board. This event would then be known long in > advance and people would have time to prepare their bids for a seat on > the rebooted body. Independent of the actual legal powers of the AGM, > certainly no board member could ignore such an express declaration by > the very people they're serving. > I think this process could be outlined and set-up in such a way that it could happen. Certainly with a year (okay perhaps less since we want people to have plenty of time to be candidates). I think the board over the next year would need to commit to a couple in person meetings and more rigorous reporting that currently happens. > > > Should we perhaps vote for "teams"? Just like a team can assemble and > bid for holding a SotM, should we allow a team to bid for being the OSMF > board for a year? > I think voting for teams would probably put us in a similar situation around election time but it would be all or nothing. Though I am interested in ways to help with cohesion. Perhaps part of it is simply an issue of general exhaustion from serving on the OSMF board for too long right now. -Kate > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Simon On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Simon Poole wrote: > > Kate was complaining about the on boarding of new board members, she got > at least an order of magnitude more support than Frederik and myself > did, I don't think that there is any -accessible- board related > institutional memory of note that is tied to board members. I do have to > point to and thank Andy Robinson for his support in providing filing and > mail services to the foundation for a very long time. > I suggest you rethink your choice of words about me "complaining". I was suggesting there are better ways to onboard people to the board. Frankly I was fine with my on boarding, simply because I've served on other boards before so I understand generally how it works. That is not the case for everyone else who becomes part of the OSMF Foundation board. Perhaps the issues in the board is a lack of respect for each other. -Kate > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > End of hypothetical situation. It is obvious that something has gone > wrong, but what, and how could it have been better? Can we expect board > members to report to the membership about the (perceived?) lack of > performance of their peers? Or does the membership have to ask questions > to find out what happens or does not happen? > > ... > > How can the > > OSMF membership hold board members accountable for it? > > Watch what the board are doing, and ask questions. Read the answers you > get, and ask the questions that arise from them. That's what I would > suggest, and as a board member I'd actually value it if I saw that > members were interested in my work. Even if I'd probably have to give > many an embarrassing answer. I've seen members and non-members alike ask questions like "What does the OSMF do?" and the response is something about putting on a conference (but really volunteers outside the board do that) and holding on to money. Essentially, the answer is "Nothing, on purpose." When the community (not just the membership) is told the board is designed not to do anything, then we stop asking questions because one assumes you can't get "doing nothing" wrong. It sounds like that's not the case, though. The board-membership communications channel is definitely a two-way street, though. In every other organization I've been a part of, we endeavored to make sure the membership was aware of what we were doing. They had elected us and expect results (or at least leadership to facilitate volunteers' results), after all. I would expect the board members that *want* to get things done to work as hard as they can to expose the board-internal squabbles that prevent action. I'm glad you started that conversation, Frederik. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, On 10/23/2014 08:22 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote: > The problem is that I don't see where the membership has any leverge on > the board apart from the elections. We have had discussions about > transparency before but they have been utterly fruitless so far. A good > part of the current members has promised to report from the work of the > board in their manifestos. Let me describe a purely hypothetical situation. Say there's someone on the board who doesn't really do anything. They rarely show up for meetings, don't participate in mailing list discussions, and respond late if at all to inquiries by the rest of the board. It's not however *so* bad that board would go through the trouble of calling an EGM to have that board member removed or replaced, especially since that would always require someone to be the first to stand up and spread disharmony by pointing out the obvious. A new election comes up and, lo and behold, that same board member even stands for re-election. The other board members are a bit puzzled but what can they do, they can't suddenly start a campaign against one of their own, can they? In the absence of any communications from other board members, the OSMF membership assumes that the board member in question must have been doing a good job, and promptly re-elects them. End of hypothetical situation. It is obvious that something has gone wrong, but what, and how could it have been better? Can we expect board members to report to the membership about the (perceived?) lack of performance of their peers? Or does the membership have to ask questions to find out what happens or does not happen? Board members are expected to keep board matters confidential, something that is also enshrined in the Rules of Order that you mention. This is to avoid reading about the board meeting in 5 different twitter feeds instead of on the OSMF wiki ;) but maybe the balance is not right. Maybe individual board members should be asked to report about their work to the electorate. But that would of course hardly be objective. Currently not only have we no such reporting, but the secretary (me) has even been asked not to specifically minute *who* voted for *what* in those few cases where board votes on something. > It very clear states the obligations of a board member with respect to > board meetings and transparency. How does the board hold its individual > members accountable for following the rules of order? Not at all, really. The rules of order is something we spent quite some time on during our face-to-face meeting last year. I had introduced that document because I felt that being clear about expectations and obligations would remove some of the problems. The bill didn't pass fully (I think the draft is still on my user page on the OSM Foundation Wiki, something I caught flak for internally BTW) but at the time I hoped that the bits that passed, like that board members shouldn't keep information from each other, would clear some obstacles. I think that was one of those occasions where I was naive. > How can the > OSMF membership hold board members accountable for it? Watch what the board are doing, and ask questions. Read the answers you get, and ask the questions that arise from them. That's what I would suggest, and as a board member I'd actually value it if I saw that members were interested in my work. Even if I'd probably have to give many an embarrassing answer. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing board > members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a clean start. A radical step, but I like it. I'd be more than happy to withdraw my candidacy if there was a spirit of rebooting. We wouldn't even need seven new candidates; we could simply elect a few and they could then add new un-elected board members as they like (article 79 in the AoA). Instead of rushing through such an unprecedented measure, we could also do it in a more orderly fashion: Have this year's AGM decide that the board should prepare to resign altogether at the next AGM, and prepare the election of a full new board. This event would then be known long in advance and people would have time to prepare their bids for a seat on the rebooted body. Independent of the actual legal powers of the AGM, certainly no board member could ignore such an express declaration by the very people they're serving. Another thing, while we're throwing doors wide open. In many political systems around the world, the electorate doesn't elect a group of people with wildly different goals. Instead, people form parties and the electorate decides for a party, and the party will then form the government. (Grossly simplifying, I know.) That way, people in government have to fight each other to a much lesser degree than they would if government were comprised of people following different political views and goals. By appointing seven directors individually, on the one hand we have the advantage that they can keep each other in check; we, as the electorate, don't have to be super careful, if we elect someone who's incompetent or a kleptomaniac, the others on the board will hopefully notice and fix it somehow. On the other hand, there's the danger of seeding the board with a couple of difficult personalities that make life hard and reduce productiveness for the rest of them. Should we perhaps vote for "teams"? Just like a team can assemble and bid for holding a SotM, should we allow a team to bid for being the OSMF board for a year? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Simon Poole wrote: Kathleen Danielson wrote: That said, I would like to voice my support for Richard's suggestion that the full board step down. It simply is a very unrealistic option given that it would require a mechanism that doesn't exist to force all board members to resign. Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing board members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a clean start. Incidentally, only three of the current board members (Simon, Frederik and Kate) have contributed to or shown any sign of being aware of this debate. Matt of course is stepping down but I hope Dermot, Henk and Oliver will take this chance to engage with the community they represent and serve. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Kathleen
Am 23.10.2014 10:47, schrieb Kathleen Danielson:
>
> There has been some discussion between Michael, the board and myself on
> changing the inner workings of the OSMF a bit which potentially could
> address some of the remaining issues, however these are at a very early
> discussion stage.
>
>
> Simon, would you care to shed light on this? This seems like a good time
> to bring conversation out into the open, so that the community can give
> input, rather than waiting until things have already been decided. The
> deadline for someone to announce their candidacy is in just over 12
> hours, so today is rather critical for OSMF. I would hate for something
> to come out in a day or a week that could have compelled someone to run.
I don't believe any of the changes would or should effect anybody
wanting to run for the upcoming election. Any change would not be short
term in any case and likely discussed to death before anything happens.
The issues in discussion are not new, it is simply a renewed attempt at
addressing them:
- role of the board: strategic? oversight? operational? Right now the
OSMF board is a mash up of all three.
- in the same vein revisit the management team concept, given that is
has struggled to get off the ground, does it need changing?
- more participation from the community in the OSMF outside of the
working groups and the board. Do we need to provide additional
structures to facilitate that? For example an advisory board?
- can we do anything to help the working groups? Kate pointed out her
animal shelter experience, however it seems at odds with OSM reality.
The "shoveling manure" working groups are doing fairly well, foremost
the DWG, but naturally the OWG and the LWG too, all the others seem to
have participation and motivation problems.
... and probably a couple of points that I've forgot.
>
> Speaking of timelines, I'd like to register my disappointment that it
> wasn't made more obviously known that the deadline has already passed to
> join the foundation to be eligible to vote in the upcoming election [1].
> I certainly understand why the 30 day rule is in place, but we talk
> about how few community members are actually OSMF members, and yet the
> AGM wasn't formally announced until *yesterday*, [2] only 17 days in
> advance. I also absolutely understand the challenges around scheduling
> at conferences, but I wasn't aware of this rule, and I think it's fair
> to assume many other people weren't as well. By failing to publicize
> this important deadline to the larger community, a key opportunity has
> been lost to increase the membership as well as to hear the voices of
> more community members in our annual election. To me, this communicates
> either satisfaction with the status quo ("why expand the voting base if
> we're happy with how elections have gone in the past?"), or simply
> apathy. Both are disappointing.
The 30 day rule is -very- new, this is actually the first time it will
apply, so I apologize if anybody was surprised by it. The scheduling
issue is real and it flatly wouldn't have been possible to formally
announce in time (which would have had to been 60 days back to give
enough time to avoid the cut off without undue haste). The solution to
this will likely be to disassociate GM scheduling from the SOTM event so
that we can plan the GM well in advance.
> There is still quite a bit that I want to say in response to the
> messages of the past few days, but it's taking me some time to formulate
> the bulk of my thoughts. That said, I would like to voice my support for
> Richard's suggestion that the full board step down. I hope most of them
> will stand for re-election, but I think we've heard that whichever 2
> people we elect are likely to be burnt out and sapped of whatever energy
> they have going into the election. Don't think that I don't understand
> the challenge that comes with the potential loss of institutional
> memory. It's something we've discussed many times on the OSM-US board. I
> do think that it's a drastic option, but I can't see anything short of a
> drastic option making a substantial difference.
It simply is a very unrealistic option given that it would require a
mechanism that doesn't exist to force all board members to resign.
Kate was complaining about the on boarding of new board members, she got
at least an order of magnitude more support than Frederik and myself
did, I don't think that there is any -accessible- board related
institutional memory of note that is tied to board members. I do have to
point to and thank Andy Robinson for his support in providing filing and
mail services to the foundation for a very long time.
> If the past few days
> have taught us anything, it's that the OSMF is fundamentally broken and
> doesn't have the energy needed to fix that. This project can and should
> be able to and *has* done great things, but it could be
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
>
>
> There has been some discussion between Michael, the board and myself on
> changing the inner workings of the OSMF a bit which potentially could
> address some of the remaining issues, however these are at a very early
> discussion stage.
Simon, would you care to shed light on this? This seems like a good time to
bring conversation out into the open, so that the community can give input,
rather than waiting until things have already been decided. The deadline
for someone to announce their candidacy is in just over 12 hours, so today
is rather critical for OSMF. I would hate for something to come out in a
day or a week that could have compelled someone to run.
Speaking of timelines, I'd like to register my disappointment that it
wasn't made more obviously known that the deadline has already passed to
join the foundation to be eligible to vote in the upcoming election [1]. I
certainly understand why the 30 day rule is in place, but we talk about how
few community members are actually OSMF members, and yet the AGM wasn't
formally announced until *yesterday*, [2] only 17 days in advance. I also
absolutely understand the challenges around scheduling at conferences, but
I wasn't aware of this rule, and I think it's fair to assume many other
people weren't as well. By failing to publicize this important deadline to
the larger community, a key opportunity has been lost to increase the
membership as well as to hear the voices of more community members in our
annual election. To me, this communicates either satisfaction with the
status quo ("why expand the voting base if we're happy with how elections
have gone in the past?"), or simply apathy. Both are disappointing.
There is still quite a bit that I want to say in response to the messages
of the past few days, but it's taking me some time to formulate the bulk of
my thoughts. That said, I would like to voice my support for Richard's
suggestion that the full board step down. I hope most of them will stand
for re-election, but I think we've heard that whichever 2 people we elect
are likely to be burnt out and sapped of whatever energy they have going
into the election. Don't think that I don't understand the challenge that
comes with the potential loss of institutional memory. It's something we've
discussed many times on the OSM-US board. I do think that it's a drastic
option, but I can't see anything short of a drastic option making a
substantial difference. If the past few days have taught us anything, it's
that the OSMF is fundamentally broken and doesn't have the energy needed to
fix that. This project can and should be able to and *has* done great
things, but it could be so much more. No, we don't always agree with what
"more" means, but with a governing body (which is what OSMF is, even if
that isn't made explicit) that cannot accomplish things, we're not going to
see any version of "more".
Yes, I've decided to stand for election, and no, I don't expect my view to
make me particularly popular (or electable), but I truly care about this
project, and I want to see our community become a healthy one. I think a
shakeup in leadership could help us get there.
[1]
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#VOTING_AT_GENERAL_MEETINGS
(see
item 75)
[2]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-announce/2014-October/12.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Am 23.10.2014 08:22, schrieb Sarah Hoffmann: .. > > It very clear states the obligations of a board member with respect to > board meetings and transparency. How does the board hold its individual > members accountable for following the rules of order? How can the > OSMF membership hold board members accountable for it? .. The board members are elected by the OSMF members and the board doesn't really have control over its own composition outside of a couple of nuclear options that naturally tend to not be invoked. The rules of order can be seen as a contract between the board members complementary to the law and articles of association, but just as in the real world a breach of contract will make people unhappy, but given the trade-offs tend to not have any consequences of note. One thing has become obvious, that the current 1/3 of the board stands for re-election per year rule has provided lots of continuity but not enough change. Going forward I would suggest tweaking the articles to limit consecutive terms to two (just reiterating what I've said earlier) and require a minimum of 3 seats to be available at every election. There has been some discussion between Michael, the board and myself on changing the inner workings of the OSMF a bit which potentially could address some of the remaining issues, however these are at a very early discussion stage. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:47:03PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > In theory, the OSMF members are the boss and board is just a group of > people asked by the members to run business for them until they convene > next time. In similar organisations I know in Germany, it is absolutely > not uncommmon for members to discuss and submit proposals to the AGM > that would be binding for the board; and for people to actually discuss > and argue and vote at an AGM. > > OSMF has no culture of democracy really; and this is most likely due to > the founding story: This is not a political body, it's mainly a > safeguard for things like our trademarks and a legal entity to operate > our servers. The problem is that I don't see where the membership has any leverge on the board apart from the elections. We have had discussions about transparency before but they have been utterly fruitless so far. A good part of the current members has promised to report from the work of the board in their manifestos. None has ever done that more than once. We have lost quite a few very active community members in den OSMF because they have lost any hope that anything can be changed whatsoever by being a member. Going through the minutes, I am remaineded that the board has given itself a set of rules already two years ago: http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Rules_of_Order It very clear states the obligations of a board member with respect to board meetings and transparency. How does the board hold its individual members accountable for following the rules of order? How can the OSMF membership hold board members accountable for it? Kind regards Sarah ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Simon, I was not asking to emulate the WMF, I was asking because I am not familiar with the internal procedures of the OSMF. But yes, after checking the numbers both organizations are not comparable, at all. >From this thread it seemed that there were serious issues, but seeing all what has been accomplished with such a tight budget, it is quite a feat. Thanks, On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > > > Am 22.10.2014 11:48, schrieb David Cuenca: > > Hi Martin, > > > > thanks for the link. What about annual plans and community reviews? > > Where can I see them? > > > David, > > The WMF has a considerable amount of resources available both in funds > and in people. It is a very Apples and Oranges comparison, which extends > beyond just the relative size or the organisation. You will find > essentially none of the WMFs sugar coating in the OSMF. > > In some of these discussions there seems to be an assumption that we > could simply just emulate the WMF and everything would be fine and > dandy, however the basic business model and competitive environment is > very different and we have some very different trade off's to make. > > Simon > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
> > btw, there should be a "all values in GBP" or similar on this page: > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances/Balance_Sheet_2012 > Well I can fix that at least (done) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Am 22.10.2014 11:48, schrieb David Cuenca: > Hi Martin, > > thanks for the link. What about annual plans and community reviews? > Where can I see them? David, The WMF has a considerable amount of resources available both in funds and in people. It is a very Apples and Oranges comparison, which extends beyond just the relative size or the organisation. You will find essentially none of the WMFs sugar coating in the OSMF. In some of these discussions there seems to be an assumption that we could simply just emulate the WMF and everything would be fine and dandy, however the basic business model and competitive environment is very different and we have some very different trade off's to make. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
btw, there should be a "all values in GBP" or similar on this page: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances/Balance_Sheet_2012 I wonder if there shouldn't be some explanatory words in general for these tables, they are not really selfexplaing for someone not deeply into this. E.g. I can see that most money gets transferred via PayPal. Are the PayPal numbers in the Assets section net numbers, i.e. are the fee and other charges and taxes and exchange losses etc., already subtracted? Can we get figures how the bank charges and exchange fees are composed (which bank is this referring to, Barclays or PayPal)? What are prepayments? What are Bad Debts Written off (specific) 1,639 ? What have the other professional fees besides "Accountancy and Legal" been spent for? Why is Computer Depreciation in the INCOME 2012 14,935 GBP Depreciation Charge: Computer Equipment 14,935 but in the balance sheet 2012 Office Equipment Depreciation is 37,176? What other office equipment besides the computers are in the assets to make up such a big difference? etc. @David: there are no community reviews so far, nor an audit by a professional. I am not sure if there are annual plans. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Martin, thanks for the link. What about annual plans and community reviews? Where can I see them? Sorry for my ignorance about how to find this information... On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2014-10-22 11:40 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca : > >> Where can I find the financial reports of the OpenStreetMap Foundation? > > > > > you can go to the homepage, click on "main page": > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page > then on "Finances" and you will get some information: > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances > > cheers, > Martin > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
2014-10-22 11:40 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca : > Where can I find the financial reports of the OpenStreetMap Foundation? you can go to the homepage, click on "main page": http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page then on "Finances" and you will get some information: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Finances cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On the Wikimedia Foundation web site there is a page with all financial reports: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Financial_reports Where can I find the financial reports of the OpenStreetMap Foundation? Thanks, Micru On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer < dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2014-10-22 8:53 GMT+02:00 Oleksiy Muzalyev : > >> What if we introduce a rule that one can write a message in English and >> then, for clarity, the version of the same message in another human >> language? If there is an original idea, it does not matter much in what >> language it was formulated. > > > > I somehow like this idea, but the written language always has some > problems compared to spoken language, as the latter allows for variations > to transport additional meaning, relativize or even invert what the literal > meaning of the said words is. Also some languages cannot be written. If we > were to introduce this rule, I'd suggest to allow audio and video > recordings as well. Obviously requiring an English version will still > prevent a lot of people from contributing to the process so maybe this > should be optional. > > > Im Prinzip eine gute Idee, allerdings ergeben sich aus der Niederschrift > von Sprache grundsätzliche Probleme, da die gesprochene Sprache > Variationsmöglichkeiten (Intonation, Prosodie, Akzent) bietet, um > zusätzliche Bedeutungsebenen zu transportieren, die das wörtlich Gesagte > relativieren, in ein anderes Licht setzen und im Extremfall sogar umkehren > können. Auch können manche Sprachen gar nicht schriftlich wiedergegeben > werden. Sollten wir diese Regelung einführen, so würde ich dafür plädieren, > zusätzlich auch Ton und Bildaufnahmen zuzulassen. Allerdings ist > prinzipiell die Erfordernis einer englischen Version bereits ein Hindernis, > welches viele Menschen von der Teilnahme am Prozess ausschließt, daher > könnte das ggf. optional werden. > > > cheers, > Martin > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
2014-10-22 8:53 GMT+02:00 Oleksiy Muzalyev : > What if we introduce a rule that one can write a message in English and > then, for clarity, the version of the same message in another human > language? If there is an original idea, it does not matter much in what > language it was formulated. I somehow like this idea, but the written language always has some problems compared to spoken language, as the latter allows for variations to transport additional meaning, relativize or even invert what the literal meaning of the said words is. Also some languages cannot be written. If we were to introduce this rule, I'd suggest to allow audio and video recordings as well. Obviously requiring an English version will still prevent a lot of people from contributing to the process so maybe this should be optional. Im Prinzip eine gute Idee, allerdings ergeben sich aus der Niederschrift von Sprache grundsätzliche Probleme, da die gesprochene Sprache Variationsmöglichkeiten (Intonation, Prosodie, Akzent) bietet, um zusätzliche Bedeutungsebenen zu transportieren, die das wörtlich Gesagte relativieren, in ein anderes Licht setzen und im Extremfall sogar umkehren können. Auch können manche Sprachen gar nicht schriftlich wiedergegeben werden. Sollten wir diese Regelung einführen, so würde ich dafür plädieren, zusätzlich auch Ton und Bildaufnahmen zuzulassen. Allerdings ist prinzipiell die Erfordernis einer englischen Version bereits ein Hindernis, welches viele Menschen von der Teilnahme am Prozess ausschließt, daher könnte das ggf. optional werden. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: > One issue is we really have no idea what the OSMF membership wants. We > know what some vocal people who write English well want. What a lot of > communities do to determine this is have a yearly community survey. Simply > voting for board members itself doesn't give any idea what people generally > want. For example last year I received the most votes in the board > election. Does that mean I have "brand recognition", people liked my > manifesto or simply there were people that thought only men shouldn't be on > the OSMF board? We have no idea. A community survey is one way we could > start to get a better grip on the desires for the OSMF. Of course we still > would be bound to the opinions of only those that like to answer surveys. While it's true that we operate somewhat in the blind, just surveying OSMF members will only give a peek into the community, not just people who respond to surveys but the small handful of OSMF membership, We need is to think of the bigger community. Ideally we conduct an annual survey of all mappers and OSM stakeholders. Getting a high response rate would be very desirable so we hear from the many that are not vocal on mailing lists and IRC channels. I suspect that its a small handful of people that influence the Board. I'd like to see a substantial increase in the OSMF membership. Not sure what it will take. Certainly cost is an issue, but it must be more that cost since membership isn't that expensive. I think the US Chapter has done a good job of offering discounts to SOTM-US for it's members. I'd recommend the Board at least adopt a similar strategy. That alone isn't sufficient, but it is a start. I was part of a group that felt the Board should survey the community. We got started, but failed to complete a survey because of the difficulty of creating one in multiple languages. I'm happy to see Kate suggest an annual survey. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. We still have the unfinished survey available. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi All, I felt I should speak up as the newest board member. I certainly think there are things that OSMF could do to function better as well as the OSMF Board. I think it can be difficult to move forward when everyone has very strong feelings about the project, but they sometimes seem at odds with each other. Often it can feel like the person with the most time at their email box can simply wear everyone else down. I don't think OSM and the OSMF are an exception to this though. One issue is we really have no idea what the OSMF membership wants. We know what some vocal people who write English well want. What a lot of communities do to determine this is have a yearly community survey. Simply voting for board members itself doesn't give any idea what people generally want. For example last year I received the most votes in the board election. Does that mean I have "brand recognition", people liked my manifesto or simply there were people that thought only men shouldn't be on the OSMF board? We have no idea. A community survey is one way we could start to get a better grip on the desires for the OSMF. Of course we still would be bound to the opinions of only those that like to answer surveys. Another difficulty is there is no board primer. When you join the OSMF board you mostly just jump in. One of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) board members began a board primer for HOT after they joined HOT's board. This was to help with this very issue. Part of it is just helping people to understand what it means to be on a board. How many people that join the OSMF board have never served on any board at all? Frederik's manifesto isn't really anything I can specifically disagree with though I suspect if Frederik and I were to debate the items we will have very different approaches to them. To me that is the major sticking point generally within the OSMF. We don't have a great way to find common ground. I hope this year we will have an in person meeting, not everyone is even in agreement that meeting in person helps with cohesion. So you can see that much work is to be done. It is difficult for me to read some statements about problems in the board without feeling that they are jabs at other board members without naming names. This is a sign of what we really need is trust, not necessarily agreement, but trust. While I haven't really done much in the past year, I hope that we can find ways to be more effective. I think simply publicly saying "there is a problem" is a good start. Best, -Kate On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Stefan Keller wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder why we're discussing here everything else but what Frederik > mentioned in his manifesto and in this reply above. > > Richard voted that the board should stand down. > I can't oversea the situation but I tend to give our colleages a > second chance to fix things. > I do that also knowing that OSMF is young with few members, many of > them being also members in WGs. > > On 2014-10-21 15:47 GMT+02:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > ... > > In short, what I'd like to see is (a) more people joining OSMF, and (b) > > at least some these people actually following and commenting on what the > > board does, or doesn't do, in their name. > > To me, actions speak louder than words. > So, I decided to join OSMF these days. > And I propose to add the following to the board meeting agenda: > * Setting up a clearer modus operandi of the board and working groups > * Making the board meeting agenda publicly available > * Advancing trademark policy > * Setting up a plan to get more corporate members > (actually, these points are just taken from Frederik's plea). > > Yours, S. > > 2014-10-22 0:05 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > > > > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, I wonder why we're discussing here everything else but what Frederik mentioned in his manifesto and in this reply above. Richard voted that the board should stand down. I can't oversea the situation but I tend to give our colleages a second chance to fix things. I do that also knowing that OSMF is young with few members, many of them being also members in WGs. On 2014-10-21 15:47 GMT+02:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: > ... > In short, what I'd like to see is (a) more people joining OSMF, and (b) > at least some these people actually following and commenting on what the > board does, or doesn't do, in their name. To me, actions speak louder than words. So, I decided to join OSMF these days. And I propose to add the following to the board meeting agenda: * Setting up a clearer modus operandi of the board and working groups * Making the board meeting agenda publicly available * Advancing trademark policy * Setting up a plan to get more corporate members (actually, these points are just taken from Frederik's plea). Yours, S. 2014-10-22 0:05 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > > Jason, > > I suspect you are slightly over interpreting what has been said up to > now. Our accountant and the treasurer have control of the back accounts > and I wouldn't expect to have direct access (nor likely other board > members). The board has relied on the treasurer for cash management and > I have no reason to believe that there are any issues with that other > than it is not very transparent. Other points wrt financial planning and > SOTM have already been raised. > > Historically there seems to have been very little financial reporting, > the board did however three years back or so, as a principle, ask for > quarterly reports, which IMHO is enough given the size of the > organisation and number of transactions. This has been a long time in > the making, but our accountant does produce them now, there is simply > some fail in bringing them to the boards attention (and a further step > would actually be publishing them). Or to put it differently: the OSMF > likely has never had as good control of its financials as right now, > there is simply still more to do. > > There is an interesting point in that there is no external/internal > audit of any kind. Not unusual for small companies, but is a bit unusual > for a membership organisation. Very small SOSM for example has two > (elected) members review the accounts in lieu of a proper audit and > report their findings at the AGM. I could imagine doing something > similar in the OSMF (no idea if this causes any legal issues, but that > can be investigated) given that we currently probably don't want to > spend the money for a formal audit. > > Note that Oliver has announced (a couple of weeks back) that he will > resign as treasurer and I expect that the board will elect a replacement > or put an other solution in place at the first meeting after the elections. > > Simon > > Am 21.10.2014 22:37, schrieb Jason Remillard: >> Hi, >> >> This is an unhappy read. I am stunned that the board members don't >> have access to the bank registers. How can any decisions be made about >> the servers, STOM, fundraising effectiveness, etc without having a >> handle on the cash? The foundation handles so little money, it should >> be very simple keeping the bank registers up to date. Could our >> treasure, Oliver Kühn , please justify this policy on the talk list. I >> am going to be very reluctant to give more money to the foundation >> until this policy is changed. >> >> Jason >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating that some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration to achieve in the board. >>> >>> As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which >>> tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Jason, I suspect you are slightly over interpreting what has been said up to now. Our accountant and the treasurer have control of the back accounts and I wouldn't expect to have direct access (nor likely other board members). The board has relied on the treasurer for cash management and I have no reason to believe that there are any issues with that other than it is not very transparent. Other points wrt financial planning and SOTM have already been raised. Historically there seems to have been very little financial reporting, the board did however three years back or so, as a principle, ask for quarterly reports, which IMHO is enough given the size of the organisation and number of transactions. This has been a long time in the making, but our accountant does produce them now, there is simply some fail in bringing them to the boards attention (and a further step would actually be publishing them). Or to put it differently: the OSMF likely has never had as good control of its financials as right now, there is simply still more to do. There is an interesting point in that there is no external/internal audit of any kind. Not unusual for small companies, but is a bit unusual for a membership organisation. Very small SOSM for example has two (elected) members review the accounts in lieu of a proper audit and report their findings at the AGM. I could imagine doing something similar in the OSMF (no idea if this causes any legal issues, but that can be investigated) given that we currently probably don't want to spend the money for a formal audit. Note that Oliver has announced (a couple of weeks back) that he will resign as treasurer and I expect that the board will elect a replacement or put an other solution in place at the first meeting after the elections. Simon Am 21.10.2014 22:37, schrieb Jason Remillard: > Hi, > > This is an unhappy read. I am stunned that the board members don't > have access to the bank registers. How can any decisions be made about > the servers, STOM, fundraising effectiveness, etc without having a > handle on the cash? The foundation handles so little money, it should > be very simple keeping the bank registers up to date. Could our > treasure, Oliver Kühn , please justify this policy on the talk list. I > am going to be very reluctant to give more money to the foundation > until this policy is changed. > > Jason > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto >>> >>> This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating >>> that >>> some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the >>> individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important >>> that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can >>> operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of >>> the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is >>> little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration >>> to achieve in the board. >> >> As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which >> tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Oliver is seldom seen on the mailing lists, you might want to cc his board email oli...@osmfoundation.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, This is an unhappy read. I am stunned that the board members don't have access to the bank registers. How can any decisions be made about the servers, STOM, fundraising effectiveness, etc without having a handle on the cash? The foundation handles so little money, it should be very simple keeping the bank registers up to date. Could our treasure, Oliver Kühn , please justify this policy on the talk list. I am going to be very reluctant to give more money to the foundation until this policy is changed. Jason >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto >> >> This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating >> that >> some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the >> individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important >> that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can >> operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of >> the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is >> little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration >> to achieve in the board. > > > As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which > tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Am 21.10.2014 15:33, schrieb moltonel 3x Combo: > On 21/10/2014, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> Sarah Hoffman wrote: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto > > That was a disheartening read. > > The transparency issue is the one that shocks me (a "basic > contributor") most, in a project that has open data as its founding > purpose and that is firmly rooted in the open source community. I > expect to be able to look into the inner workings of any important OSM > body. Note that Frederiks and my complaint has been about the inner workings of the OSMF not being transparent to board members, that is a different kettle of fish than transparency to the members and the general public (the later obviously wont work without the former though). To our members and the general public, IMHO the largest annoyance is having financials available in a reasonable time frame after the close of the financial year. This is mainly a cumulative effect of - choice of the financial year - UK tax return filing date - timing of SOTM/GM which results in the financials typically being presented more than one year after the end of the financial year they are from. As I've pointed out they are available a -lot- before that, but we have up to now failed at actually making them available. To use the example of expenses that Frederik raised, yes I would normally expect the board to have a good grip on the numbers and who has spent what, but I wouldn't expect a breakdown per person to be published (it likely wouldn't even be legal). The other financials related issue is that we don't publish a budget for our financial year (for the first time that I'm aware of we did try to bring together the numbers for an internal budget this year, still this is not really a replacement). We further have not really had a good handle on the risks associated with the largest line item, SOTM. > I know that discussions can be heated, that opinions and > wordings can change, that mistakes can be made, etc. It's par for the > course, don't hide it, we don't mind and neither should you. > > The other issues are bad as well, but in a sense, they're not my > problem. They make life hard for board members and should be fixed, > but they don't cast a shadow over OSM as a whole. It's surprising to > see such contrast between OSM's general doocracy and the OSMF's more > bureaucratic approach, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just fix > it for your own sakes, OSMF members. I don't think that even by a wide margin the OSMF could be described as bureaucratic, yes, procedure tends to be invoked, as Frederik pointed out, as a political ploy, but that is about it. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, On 10/21/14 13:42, Kathleen Danielson wrote: > more interested in what we (as > members) can do to make it a more functional place. Even when I was not a board member, I tended to be a little bit frustrated by how little the OSMF membership in general were interested in what their board (or theur foundation) does. There is no history in OSMF for the members trying to hold their board to account. The OSMF board can neglect to put important stuff on their agenda, neglect to hold board meetings, individual board members can skip board meetings many times in a row without explaining themselves, or we can postpone stuff indefinitely, and nobody will even so much as raise an eyebrow in public. In theory, the OSMF members are the boss and board is just a group of people asked by the members to run business for them until they convene next time. In similar organisations I know in Germany, it is absolutely not uncommmon for members to discuss and submit proposals to the AGM that would be binding for the board; and for people to actually discuss and argue and vote at an AGM. OSMF has no culture of democracy really; and this is most likely due to the founding story: This is not a political body, it's mainly a safeguard for things like our trademarks and a legal entity to operate our servers. And who would, as a member, get in the way of that? Why engage, emotionally, with another area of politics when all of us have enough of that in their lives already? OSMF itself says it doesn't want to be important, so maybe it shouldn't be important to me either. So we're all happy as long as things work somehow, and we vote for whichever name we've heard before, and don't bother asking questions, or reading minutes, or whatever. For me as a board member, it would have been very helpful to have an active membership actually watching what I do (or don't do), and asking the questions that may arise from in between the lines of some meeting minutes. I would have considered it normal to be held accountable; but that *may* be a cultural difference - there seems to be a certain school of thought whereby the democratic participation of members is reduced to voting for board once a year and asking questions would mean "you don't trust your board", and even while I was not yet on the board I was occasional chided by other members for asking critical questions. In short, what I'd like to see is (a) more people joining OSMF, and (b) at least some these people actually following and commenting on what the board does, or doesn't do, in their name. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On 21/10/2014, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Sarah Hoffman wrote: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto That was a disheartening read. The transparency issue is the one that shocks me (a "basic contributor") most, in a project that has open data as its founding purpose and that is firmly rooted in the open source community. I expect to be able to look into the inner workings of any important OSM body. I know that discussions can be heated, that opinions and wordings can change, that mistakes can be made, etc. It's par for the course, don't hide it, we don't mind and neither should you. The other issues are bad as well, but in a sense, they're not my problem. They make life hard for board members and should be fixed, but they don't cast a shadow over OSM as a whole. It's surprising to see such contrast between OSM's general doocracy and the OSMF's more bureaucratic approach, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just fix it for your own sakes, OSMF members. > I would like to see: > > - the whole board stand down in advance of this election; > - now and in the future, those who have already served two > standard-length terms (i.e. six years) should refrain from re-election > and further involvement; this is good practice in any organisation (e.g. > the US presidency!) but especially so in a fast-moving technology project. I +1 that with all the authority of my 1000-ish changesets, edits, and posts :p It seems like an obvious starting point to restore the community's^W^Wmy trust in the OSMF (even if the list of board members doesn't change much this time round). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Richard, I think you're right to post this here. While it is a matter of how the foundation board functions and pertains specifically to the election, I think that it would be preferable to have this discussion in a more open forum. I replied to the post in the osmf-talk list, but I'm reposting my reply in its entirety here, and I'll ask that people move conversation here. Hi Sarah, Thanks for highlighting Frederik's manifesto. I have to agree that it sheds some pretty bad light on how the board operates. I'll shy away from making any allegations of illegality because I know how difficult it can be to keep up with the paperwork in a tiny volunteer-run organization. Personally, I'm inclined to give the board the benefit of the doubt in terms of membership or financial information. I suspect that had to do with bandwidth, rather than secretive intent. As well, I can understand the aversion to having meeting minutes taken verbatim. The OSM-US board had several heated discussions over the last year while I was a member and I was glad to have a place for private discussion before we published our minutes/blog posts/etc. Still, you raise a very important point: Reading this manifesto indicates that there is little point in standing for > election as there is nothing but frustration to achieve in the board. The OSMF board sounds like an emotionally exhausting and draining body. I can wholly empathize, but it's still a problem. Personally, I'm a bit less interested in all of the current board members answering for Frederik's take on the group, and more interested in what we (as members) can do to make it a more functional place. It seems to me that we (generally speaking) enjoy complaining that the board doesn't do anything, to which we generally hear the response that the board's mandate is intentionally narrow, and yet this little glimpse into what's going on in there gives a fairly stark view of the climate each of our board members are working within. In a situation such as that, how can you be expected to take on much else? Who has the energy to deal with diversity initiatives, for example, when everything is seen as so political? Perhaps instead of the purpose of the board being too small, it's in fact too large-- maybe they need more support in the administrative workings. I'm reluctant to suggest more working groups, but finding some other mechanism for support that would free up the board to be more creative might be helpful. Maybe it's a matter of finding ways to test out new ideas in a less risky environment, meaning we as a membership need to encourage more experimentation and be more forgiving of failure. None of these are cure-alls (and some of them are probably horrific ideas), but it seems to me that yes, we want to elect passionate, excited people to our board, but just doing that isn't enough. We need to elect these people *and* make the structural changes that will help them be successful. Without that, we're going to keep burning out our board members, and I can't see us getting much done that way. Best, Kathleen On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > [this was originally posted to osmf-talk; I'm not a member of OSMF so > can't reply to it there. I'm also breaking my self-imposed discipline of > not posting to the talk@ list for this, but I figure it's important] > > Sarah Hoffman wrote: > >> while checking the candidate list for the upcoming board elections, I came >> across Frederik's maifesto here: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/ >> 2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto >> >> This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating >> that >> some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the >> individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important >> that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can >> operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of >> the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is >> little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration >> to achieve in the board. >> > > As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which > tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. > > It is clear, I'm afraid, that the OSMF board is broken. Plenty of people > know this privately but it hasn't been admitted publicly. We should stop > pretending. > > There are some really smart people in this project and it's sad that most > have chosen to involve themselves in their local organisations rather than > OSMF (I'm thinking particularly the US and France here). I have no personal > animus against the current board - quite the opposite, they're lovely > people - but it's clear it isn't working. (And I take my share of > responsibility as a one-time board member for failing to fix it.) > > I would like to see: > > - the whole board stand down in advance of th
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
[this was originally posted to osmf-talk; I'm not a member of OSMF so can't reply to it there. I'm also breaking my self-imposed discipline of not posting to the talk@ list for this, but I figure it's important] Sarah Hoffman wrote: while checking the candidate list for the upcoming board elections, I came across Frederik's maifesto here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating that some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration to achieve in the board. As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. It is clear, I'm afraid, that the OSMF board is broken. Plenty of people know this privately but it hasn't been admitted publicly. We should stop pretending. There are some really smart people in this project and it's sad that most have chosen to involve themselves in their local organisations rather than OSMF (I'm thinking particularly the US and France here). I have no personal animus against the current board - quite the opposite, they're lovely people - but it's clear it isn't working. (And I take my share of responsibility as a one-time board member for failing to fix it.) I would like to see: - the whole board stand down in advance of this election; - now and in the future, those who have already served two standard-length terms (i.e. six years) should refrain from re-election and further involvement; this is good practice in any organisation (e.g. the US presidency!) but especially so in a fast-moving technology project. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
