Nick Black nick at blacksworld.net
Mon Aug 17 10:10:25 UTC 2009

My position on this is clear.  It is he Foundation membership who  
elect the Board.  We should not restrict the member's choice based on  
the affiliation of a candidate to one company or cause.  The OSM-F  
membership have all of the information needed to make an intelligent  
choice that will benefit OpenStreetMap.

The Foundation should tackle the issues with "vote hijacking" by  
increasing the OSM-F membership numbers by attracting more of the  
150,000 OSM members around the world to join the OSM-F and participate  
in the election process.


On 17 Aug 2009, at 10:04, James Livingston wrote:

> On 16/08/2009, at 10:16 PM, Ulf Möller wrote:
>> In the event that any election of
>> directors results in a single entity representing greater than 40% of
>> the Board, than the nominee representing that entity receiving the
>> least
>> number of votes, shall be replaced by the nominee receiving the
>> greatest
>> number of votes who was not elected to the Board.
> You have to be careful with wording or you can cause some unexpected
> interactions with your voting system. From memory, the GNOME
> Foundation uses Fractional Transfer STV with Droop quota, so the above
> clause taking effect could produce a different result than if the
> excluded candidate had their preferences distributed.
> After just looking, I can't see anywhere on the election pages or
> articles what voting system OSMF actually uses. For the board election
> it seems that each member can cast up to seven unordered (non-
> preferential) votes, but I'm not sure how they're counted. I'm
> guessing it's "each vote counts as +1, the seven people with the most
> votes are elected".
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

Nick Black
nick at blacksworld.net

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list