<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1251">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">This amendment would
give members of the community an even closer look at the budget
formulation and fund-raising processes by having non-Board
members involved. </font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/6/2020 7:38 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:91c87450-93aa-aae5-7750-df6de332dfd1@liotier.org">On
12/5/20 11:58 PM, Allan Mustard wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I don't see what's controversial about
asking for the ability to enlist
<br>
volunteer assistance in carrying out the functions the Board
already
<br>
carries out. It's not like the Board is proposing to take on
new
<br>
functions. Specific functions are not listed in the AoA
amendment
<br>
because the AoA itself is unspecific on Board functions. In
that
<br>
regard, if the Board wanted to expand the scope of its
functions, it
<br>
could legally do so even without this amendment.
<br>
</blockquote>
I had not considered that possibility - though the amendment makes
it a little more practical.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It has not, and I predict it will not,
simply because the Board is made
<br>
up of community members who believe the substantive work of the
<br>
community and project properly is the remit of the Working
Groups, not
<br>
with the Board. As long as mappers form a majority of the Board
<br>
membership, that attitude will prevail.
<br>
<br>
As for your statement, "both of you plead that the Board won't
extend
<br>
the committees' scope beyond those lines but we have to trust
the Board
<br>
on that," as I said, the Board isn't looking for additional
work. The
<br>
Board is looking for a community-approved mechanism for getting
help
<br>
from the community to carry out the Board's housekeeping tasks.
If you
<br>
distrust the Board so much that you cannot abide by that, I
cannot help
<br>
you. I think the Board shows good faith in the discharge of its
<br>
responsibilities to the community and the project.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
A good faith board with mapper ethos is indeed the best guarantee,
but the hypothetical worst case is what we legislate for.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
On 12/5/2020 4:56 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 12/5/20 1:42 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Jochen, you make good points about
clarity on overall structure, and
<br>
I agree with you about how working groups are situated in
osmf. I’m
<br>
just going to speak very specifically to “why committees”
and why the
<br>
change. There are a few specific things which are and will
remain
<br>
board responsibilities. Compiling and preparing overall
budget.
<br>
Fundraising. Looking after personnel. This is currently
individual
<br>
responsibility (treasurer and secretary). We want to
formally spread
<br>
the load. And if there’s someone outside the board that can
provide
<br>
expertise and effort, we want to be able to work with them.
That’s
<br>
the entire purpose of the AoA change in my opinion. They’ll
remain
<br>
small groups, and won’t operate in the same way as working
groups.
<br>
They report back to board directly, don’t have expanding
membership.
<br>
</blockquote>
You imply that the committees domain would be restricted to HR
<br>
administration, budget administration and fundraising. But the
<br>
resolution does not mention such scope restriction.
<br>
<br>
To Allan I said "Your clarification express pragmatism and
prudence,
<br>
but unless a Board-endorsed policy draws a line between
Openstreetmap
<br>
Foundation Board business and the Working Groups, fears of
Board scope
<br>
creep will fester." to which he replied "That should not be
difficult.
<br>
The Board is not looking for more work. More work would
interfere with
<br>
mapping"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/allan_mustard/status/1334581812903997453">https://twitter.com/allan_mustard/status/1334581812903997453</a>).
<br>
<br>
So, both of you plead that the Board won't extend the
committees'
<br>
scope beyond those lines but we have to trust the Board on
that.
<br>
<br>
Even if one accepts the controversial position that considers
HR
<br>
administration, budget administration and fundraising and
special
<br>
cases unfit for working groups, scope creep is a risk - it may
be
<br>
theoretical but it is not mitigated in any way by the
resolution as is.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</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>