James Brown jbrown at jwbsystems.com
Sun Aug 16 10:24:59 UTC 2009

I agree.  I think that the best course is to let the electorate decide  
in each election.

I'd add that I do not see any real alternative.  If we set a limit on  
the number of board seats that people who work for the same company  
can hold, do we either:
  a. Prevent more than one person from any company from standing  
together (or standing if there is a current board member not up for  
  b. Wait till the votes are in and then, if we have more than one  
elected person from the same company force one to stand down?

And, as just occured to me... What if a board member goes to work,  
after they are elected, for the same company as another board member?   
Do they stand down?

This really feels to me like something that should just be left to the  
desires of the community as expressed in the elections.

Jim Brown -CTO CloudMade

(Sent from my iPhone)
+44 7595 367 664

On 16 Aug 2009, at 10:17, Mike Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:

> At 02:20 AM 16/08/2009, Richard Weait wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:43 AM, Frederik Ramm<frederik at remote.org>  
>> wrote:
> ...
>>> Do you and Steve have any comment on Richard Weait's suggestion that
>>> from every commercial organisation, at most one person should be a
>>> member of the OSMF board (http://weait.com/cloudmade-layoffs)? I'm  
>>> very
>>> supportive of that, although not exactly out of fear that you  
>>> might both
>>> be looking for a new job at the same time, but more along the  
>>> lines of
>>> what RichardF said in the comments section on that page.
>>> This would mean that *either* your *or* SteveC should be on the  
>>> board
>>> but not both of you. It is of course everyone's right to stand for
>>> election and let the voters decide if they support Richard's  
>>> suggestion
>>> or not - but I would be interested in hearing your opinion.
>> Nick followed up several times, but I can't see any answer to
>> Frederik's direct question.  I'd like to hear replies from each of  
>> the
>> candidates on this.
>> Should any single company be able to hold an unlimited number of  
>> seats
>> on the Foundation board?  A majority?  All?
>> How does this benefit the Foundation and the community?
>> If you believe that there should be some limit; legal, moral or
>> otherwise, where do you think it should be?
> I believe that as members we are sensible and will collectively  
> elect an appropriate board.  So, my personal opinion is that I'd  
> like to vote for good quality candidates whoever they are and that  
> having a hard constitutional limit is not an important issue for me,  
> though one that should certainly be debated by members so that all  
> views are reflected.  I am not averse to such a limit but take the  
> position that it is not the best way to go about it.
> The key is having a diverse membership.  I can affirm from the  
> membership list that we are in such a position now.  Having a larger  
> membership would be still safer.  As of today we have 165 paid-up  
> members who can vote and hover around 200 taking into account  
> renewals.  250 is my minimum goal. Local chapter organisation should  
> see us easily to that figure ... so that is my "fix"!
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list