<div dir="auto"><div>Okay, all working group members should be afforded the same restriction.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Honestly, don't we have bigger issues to manage besides implying all members are not equal? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Heather </div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 13:54 Simon Poole, <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">simon@poole.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>"With experience in the community/board" is not the same criteria
as disallowing current board members, who, imho, should not be
trying to influence the elections as long as they are a member.</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<div>Am 16.11.2019 um 13:49 schrieb Heather
Leson:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Simon, why would you restrict members or people with
experience in the community/board to not ask questions?</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Heather </div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, 13:36
Simon Poole, <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Michael<br>
<br>
Thanks for this.<br>
<br>
Expecting you to be doing this next time too :-): could we
put a rule in<br>
place that doesn't allow questions from candidates and
current board<br>
members?<br>
<br>
If the candidates want to jokey for position I would
consider a<br>
town-hall or similar type of event to be more appropriate
and fairer,<br>
instead of giving an advantage to those that get their,
typically<br>
loaded, questions to be accepted.<br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
Am 16.11.2019 um 11:04 schrieb Michael Collinson:<br>
> I have now produced a collated questions for
candidates to answer.<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM19/Election_to_Board</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Candidates, please a rough estimate of how long it
takes you and let<br>
> me know. This will help me or future volunteers keep
it reasonable. My<br>
> particular concern is the impact on non-native
English speakers.<br>
><br>
> Thank you to all who posted questions. If you have
any feedback or<br>
> concerns about what I have done, please do feel free
to let me know<br>
> publicly or privately.<br>
><br>
> --------------<br>
><br>
> OK, that is the announcement done, but for
transparency, here are some<br>
> notes on my methodology:<br>
><br>
> I want to strike a balance between candidate's time
and "censorship",<br>
> (i.e. not including everyone's questions). I also
want as much as I<br>
> can to set a level playing field for non-native
English-speaking<br>
> candidates and candidates from non-Western cultures.<br>
><br>
> Last year it took candidates who responded to me at
least 8 hours to<br>
> compile answers. Two candidates took well over that.
I had some<br>
> thoughtful private feedback from 3 folks who had
posted community<br>
> questions. Last year, I generalised questions as much
as I could and<br>
> ruthlessly cut anything that was "What is your
position on X" and not<br>
> clearly OSM-related. That meant I filtered out
specificity and had<br>
> some soul-searching as to what to do with identity
politics. As a<br>
> result of the feedback, I have tried something a bit
different this<br>
> year: There are more very specific/complex/perhaps
controversial<br>
> questions but I have given candidates some choice in
what questions<br>
> they want to tackle - so I hope it is not too
overwhelming. In<br>
> particular, there is a "What would you do?" section
where I have taken<br>
> a number of questions and presented them as if there
were board agenda<br>
> items.<br>
><br>
> Last year, Dorothea put the unedited community
questions below the<br>
> "official" set. I thought that worked very well for
transparency and<br>
> we are repeating it this year.<br>
><br>
> If you are curious about last year's questions, here
is the link:<br>
> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM18/Election_to_Board#Official_set_of_questions" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM18/Election_to_Board#Official_set_of_questions</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Mike<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> osmf-talk mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></div>