[Osmf-talk] 13k OSMF members by end of 2010?
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Tue Aug 4 08:35:29 UTC 2009
Hi,
Nick has written on his Foundation 2010 page
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/2010_Planning#Growing_the_OSM-F_Membership)
that
"In order to be a healthy, democratic organisation, the OSM-F needs to
grow its membership. By the end of 2010 the Foundation should aim to
have 13,000 members throughout the world."
Frankly, the thought frightens me. I'm all for growth but 6500% in the
scope of 15 months (that's more than 30% growth per month) sounds
everything other than "healthy" to me.
Nick argues that
"In order to be a healthy, democratic organisation, the OSM-F needs to
grow its membership."
There may be some truth to this, but such growth has to be healthy and
has to go along with establishing proper democratic structures. The
members are the ones who constitute the Foundation and they need to be
able to have a certain degree of control about what is done in their name.
I'll use a far-fetched example to make my point. Let's assume that OSMF
decides to create a well-paid director post and then hires someone who
happens to be not really suitable for the job but a good friend of four
of the seven board members, thus getting a majority of votes. Which is
bad, and cronyism, but these things happen in large organisations. The
Companies Act says that members making up 10% of the vote (i.e., roughly
20 members if we're 200) can call for an extraordinary general meeting,
in which if course the employment contract can be cancelled and the
board fired if there's a majority of votes.
Now do the same thing in an organisation of 13,000 members. It *can* be
done but that needs healthy and grown democratic structures, like for
example a watchdog that has (read-only) access to all board business and
has the right to communicate with the membership at large through the
usual channels. Call be paranoid but I *have* been a member of an
organisation where members were so apathic they couldn't be bothered to
read anything more than the monthly membership email issued by the
board, and the board did exactly what I wrote above.
I'm not prepared to agree to anything more than a doubling of membership
figures every year unless there is a very clear plan in place that
details how these members will be enabled to do their job in deciding
what OSMF should do, and controlling that the board really does what
they want. Otherwise these members are not members but just donors.
Frankly, my impression is that Nick has started out with his ambitions
plans of hiring lots of paid staff and then needed to present a credible
source of funding, which led him to make up these membership figures.
Growing 6500% in 15 months is not about strengthening democracy, it is
about sourcing funds - and in my eyes it comes close to sacrificing
democracy.
Yes, we should grow, but in a healthy fashion.
Bye
Frederik
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list