[HOT] Launching the hot mailing list in French
iknowjoseph at gmail.com
Fri Jul 11 12:18:18 UTC 2014
Hi all, me again,
*"but to me Heather's message was not "controlling" - she wasn't asking
for control, she was asking for discussion"*
I agree, but think we should agree on the use of the word "controlling" as
it's been used ambiguously so far in this thread.
I'd argue that Board members, or the Board as a whole shouldn't be
controlling the outcomes of these decisions, but it is vitally important
that someone controls the decision making process. By "controls" I mean
that someone should set a fair and repeatable system in place so that
everyone has equal opportunity to participate. Presently we have the
1: A member makes a decision, acts upon it, nobody else has a say.
This is not right. We should have had one of the following:
2: A Board vote. If people want to get involved in this they could email
the Board their opinions, stand for Board membership in December and vote
for Board members based on their policies, manifesto, etc.
3: A CWG decision. If people wanted to get involved they could join the CWG.
4: An ED decision. If people felt strongly about this they could go to the
ED's employer, the Board, as per number 2.
Points 2, 3 & 4 lead to a decision that can be accountable to HOT's
members; this is hugely important and not something afforded by 1. As such,
I think that the creation of mailing lists in this manner is a mistake.
On 11 July 2014 12:46, Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-07-11 12:20 GMT+01:00 Fran Boon <francisboon at gmail.com>:
> > On 11 July 2014 12:01, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> >> support-but-not-control mission of the OSMF
> > This is exactly what comes to my mind observing this discussion...I
> > would much prefer to see the HOT board being supportive rather than
> > trying to be controlling.
> I know we all read emails a bit differently from each other, but to me
> Heather's message was not "controlling" - she wasn't asking for
> control, she was asking for discussion. Related to that, I agree with
> what Joseph Reeves just wrote: it makes sense to discuss these things
> first, especially for HOT which _is_ more structured than OSM in
> general. I'll stop typing now because I think Joseph already put it
> Best wishes,
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT