<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Simon, et al,<br>
<blockquote type="cite">if the intent is to bring the OSMFs
structure more in to line with the AoA</blockquote>
No, that's not the intent. The intent is to get some volunteers
to help the Board put together a budget, raise funds, and deal
with personnel issues. The Working Groups and community
committees would not be affected since they do the fun stuff
(everything except the aforementioned budgeting, raising funds,
and dealing with personnel issues). We don't envision structural
changes, just community assent that the Board can formally enlist
volunteers from the community to help with housekeeping stuff.<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">the classical examples being audit and
remuneration committees (the later responsible for C-level
executives remuneration)</blockquote>
I'll tell Mrs. Mustard that you think my OSMF salary should be
doubled. 😉 How much is 2x zero?<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">it seems as if the board is currently of
the opinion that it can't create working groups (or similar
bodies) without encroaching on "community rights".</blockquote>
I have been told that quite specifically, by other Board members
who have longer tenures in the community than I do. For example,
the Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee was created as a
"special committee" this year specifically because we were told it
could not be a Working Group if it was a creature of the Board.<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">"board committee" does sound more
important</blockquote>
I'm flattered but not convinced this is so. A Board committee
(like the Board itself) deals with money and personnel, not
mapping, hardware, or software. Mapping, hardware and software
are much more important to the project, overall.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">the unhappiness with the DWG is legend</blockquote>
I don't sense that this Board is unhappy with the DWG at all, and
in fact, this Board unanimously backed a DWG decision on
indefinite suspension that was escalated to the Board on appeal
recently. Maybe historically this was the case but it doesn't
seem to be now.<br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">simply removing part of a WGs remit and
not even bothering to tell them about it as the board did in
January with the LWG</blockquote>
We're still working on that. It was bad communication, not bad
faith, and the remit was not removed. I must also say that the
Board misses your presence on the LWG. I reserve the right to
call you and ask your advice.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite"> after 5 years of stagnation, things have
piled up on the OSMFs and its board plate, and it is good that
that pile is being worked through</blockquote>
I was told 10 years. Yes, we are working through that pile, and
it is upsetting some members of the community who have insisted to
me that the Board should do literally nothing, and exists only to
comply with a requirement of the Companies Act of 2006. Much
criticism of the Board appears to originate in that belief.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">shouldn't be at the expense of
predictability, communicating in advance what the plan is and
giving everybody time to adapt</blockquote>
No argument there, and I'll try to be better at communicating. <br>
</p>
<p>cheers,<br>
apm<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/3/2020 4:30 AM, Simon Poole
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:306430c6-88ff-e7bc-fcf7-43880e07293f@poole.ch">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>As this thread started off as a reply to my comments at <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/394975"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/394975</a>
I too want to make some clarifications.</p>
<p>As I expressed in the diary post, I'm all for giving the board
more flexibility in what kind of groups and persons it can
delegate work and responsibility to. If it doesn't feel at ease
with doing things that don't quite fit in the framework of the
current AoA and going forward wants to "stick to the letter of
the law", naturally that should be fixed. My point with respect
to the AoA change is simply that it doesn't do that if that if
the intent is to bring the OSMFs structure more in to line with
the AoA because it leaves the existing working groups out in the
cold, but more fundamentally I believe the board is barking up
the wrong tree. <br>
</p>
<p>"Board committees", that is strict sub-groups of the board, are
often created for special purposes, the classical examples being
audit and remuneration committees (the later responsible for
C-level executives remuneration), typically for areas of
activities that are not part of normal business or which for
obvious reasons can't be delegated to the executives. Though
sometimes it might appear so :-), you can't really have the CEO
determining their own salary in a company with any kind of
larger ownership. In any case creating such committees is
supported by the current AoAs and it would be completely
possible to create board committees that deal with budget,
fundraising and personnel. <br>
</p>
<p>In a larger organisation such committees would naturally
delegate most of the actual work to staff and then the committee
would present the results to the board. Absent large numbers of
staff, in the case of the OSMF this boils down to volunteers,
individuals or groups of them. <br>
</p>
<p>Which brings us to the real issue, it seems as if the board is
currently of the opinion that it can't create working groups (or
similar bodies) without encroaching on "community rights". This
however this is clearly at odds with historic reality, matter of
fact I'm really challenged to come up with a single WG that
wasn't created directly by the board or action of a board
member. Maybe the MWG, but definitely not the bulk of the
groups. <br>
</p>
<p>What is true, is that by the very nature of volunteering there
is no guarantee that any group of any kind will attract enough
dedicated volunteers to make it viable, but outside of the
marketing aspect ("board committee" does sound more important),
I fail to see how the proposed changes to the AoA will make any
positive difference to that. If at all, it would seem to work
exactly the other way around, as the way the change is framed,
as I've pointed out in my diary post, calls in to doubt all work
done in the WGs other the last dozen years.</p>
<p>Wrapping up on a slightly different angle: one of the reasons
OSM has been adopted so well, far outside of any realistic
expectations, over the last decade was the predictability with
which the OSMF and the working groups acted. <br>
</p>
<p>As a company and an organisation using OSM data you were able
to rely on that if something went wrong, may it be a licence
issue, be it be a screwed up import or mechanical edit, you
could count on not being hung from the next tree to please the
vigilante mob. Detractors will argue that being nice and trying
to work through the issues with the offenders allows the
unscrupulous to take advantage of the movement, but I would
argue that the damage to our collective ego caused by a steady
hand is far outweighed by the benefits it brings and the success
of OSM is the best proof.</p>
<p>As a working group you could count on communications with the
board being bi-directional, and the delegation of
responsibilities being taken seriously. While I'm sure in the
past the board has felt unease at more than one occasion with
the actions of the WGs (the unhappiness with the DWG is legend),
it would have previously been unheard of simply removing part of
a WGs remit and not even bothering to tell them about it as the
board did in January with the LWG. The board is not going to get
more volunteers or to even be able to retain the current ones if
it continues of that erratic path. <br>
</p>
<p>Yes, after 5 years of stagnation, things have piled up on the
OSMFs and its board plate, and it is good that that pile is
being worked through, but this shouldn't be at the expense of
predictability, communicating in advance what the plan is and
giving everybody time to adapt. I used to say: everybody in OSM
can do what they want, except the OSMF board.</p>
<p>SImon<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 03.12.2020 um 03:30 schrieb Allan
Mustard:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:d08f4f5e-4399-41b9-adb0-9109604fa9cf@osmfoundation.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I'm not sure that
framework fits, if you consider that the "FOSS Policy
Committee" has an ongoing remit to determine FOSS policy and
promote FOSS usage. Perhaps we should rename it the "FOSS
Working Group" in that case. To be honest, I had not
thought of the committee vs. Working Group structure through
that prism.</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Rather, I have
lumped the existing Working Groups and various extant
committees/special committees consisting mainly of non-board
members (and invariably chaired by someone other than a
Board member) into the category of *OSM* work (data quality
control, communications, membership, etc.) while the
proposed "Board committees" would deal with *OSMF* work:
budgeting, raising funds, and personnel
management/contracting. As a long-time government manager,
I see a sharp demarcation between what is often called
"substantive" work (in our case, anything related to the map
database, i.e, "OSM community") and "administrative" or
"support" work (money and contracts, i.e., "OSMF", because
it is the legal entity). If the AoA amendment passes, I
foresee three "Board committees" being formed: budget,
fundraising, and personnel. All existing Working Groups,
committees of the community, and "special committees" would
remain as they are, nominally part of the Foundation but in
reality creatures of the OSM community, as would any future
Working Groups and non-board committees. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">apm</font></p>
On 12/2/2020 9:03 PM, Christopher Beddow wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADzfi1U9yz48yKQ91+TrEY-R=8eeN1-iv8eiRwrU-=zBMMjU=g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">I am writing to support this. In the
Microgrants Committee this became very relevant, on many
notes. It's important to recognize the Microgrants Committee
could be seen as a sort of working group but with a very
specific project and an end date in theory. It also had a
budget to manage which was provided by the foundation
directly. There were some proposed microgrant projects that
were rejected despite excellent merit due to fitting the
activities of a working group and not the microgrants
program (which went on to receive support and be successful
that way as far as I can tell).
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Allan, would it be accurate to describe OSMF
committees as being focused on rather singular goals,
often with a measurable timeline, perhaps as a sort of
managed finite project rather than an open ended group of
experts like a working group?</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For example, Data Working Group consists of
experts set to answer questions and formulate ongoing
policy about data. Meanwhile, a committee dealing with
microgrants is given a fixed budget for one time use and
has a single overall task to complete before pretty much
shutting down, unless renewed for another term. Both
groups are volunteers or appointed from a larger pool of
volunteers. One is focused on sprints and one focused on
marathons.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I may be wrong so please correct this for
the broader community understanding. </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, 18:06
Allan Mustard <<a
href="mailto:allan.mustard@osmfoundation.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">allan.mustard@osmfoundation.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Please read
my diary post clarifying what the proposed Articles
of Association amendment is about. There has been
confusion about it and I apologize for not being
utterly, totally clear. The diary post is here: <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/apm-wa/diary/394981"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/apm-wa/diary/394981</a>.
Please feel free to leave comments there or to reply
to this talk message.</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The text of
the diary post is as follows:</font></p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p
style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The OSMF Board
is asking the membership to approve an amendment
to the Articles of Association that will allow
Board committees (specified in the AoA as only
consisting of Board members) to include any
Foundation member, associate or full, to serve on
a Board committee. The reason for this is that
some of the Board’s administrative work, such as
handling our finances, has proven very time
consuming, more than one person can handle.
Another sphere is the budget preparation, and yet
another is fundraising. Since the Board is also
hiring fulltime staff and engaging contractors, it
needs help with oversight.</font></p>
<p
style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Some board
members have been asked if this is intended to
supplant the Working Groups. At least one diary
entry has been posted by a community member
asserting that this is the case, and urging
Foundation members to vote against the amendment.</font></p>
<p
style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">The proposed
AoA amendment is NOT intended to supplant Working
Groups. The Working Groups handle the substantive
and administrative issues of the community, which
is separate from the Foundation and the Board. The
Working Groups would therefore not be affected. As
I envision it, the Board committees would deal
with personnel, budget, and fundraising, none of
which fall in the remit of any Working Group.</font></p>
<p
style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1rem;color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><font
face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I urge
Foundation members to vote in favor of the AoA
amendment, and then to volunteer to serve on one
of the Board committees (and on Working Groups,
too, but separately!)</font></p>
</blockquote>
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">Thank you and
happy mapping!</font><br>
<div>-------<br>
<i>Allan Mustard, Chairperson</i><br>
<i>Board of Directors</i><br>
<i>OpenStreetMap Foundation</i></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
-------<br>
<i>Allan Mustard, Chairperson</i><br>
<i>Board of Directors</i><br>
<i>OpenStreetMap Foundation</i></div>
</body>
</html>