<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
</head>
<body>
<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">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=windows-1251">
<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=windows-1251">
<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">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>
</body>
</html>