[Osmf-talk] Members rights

Peter Miller peter.miller at itoworld.com
Fri Aug 21 08:57:46 UTC 2009


On 21 Aug 2009, at 09:41, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:

> Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Sent: 21 August 2009 7:48 AM
>> To: James Livingston
>> Cc: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Members rights
>>
>> James,
>>
>> James Livingston wrote:
>>> So if the board did start abusing their power, someone simply  
>>> needs to
>>> get the requisite fraction of the membership to agree with them (10%
>>> to force an EGM, and then enough to win a vote at the EGM).
>>
>> Yes, at least with a membership of 200 this is possible. (Once you  
>> are
>> at 10,000 members it will become very difficult, which is why other
>> organisations seem to have gone away from using linear quorums.)
>>
>> However, this would require people to have reliable information about
>> such abuse taking place, and this again would require, at the very
>> least, good documentation of board meetings and decisions. In the  
>> past,
>> such meeting minutes have not always been forthcoming, and quite a
>> number of things that I personally found relevant never found their  
>> way
>> into the minutes. It would be unwise to assume that this is going to
>> change magically somehow.
>
> Frederik, a couple of points you make here I think I need to  
> question. You
> say re board meetings that "meeting minutes have not always been
> forthcoming". I'm not aware of any minutes being missing.

Um.... I suggest we need to set a goal of publishing board minutes  
within 2 weeks of the relevent meeting and a maximum of 3 weeks. Over  
the past year the publication of minutes has been pretty erratic and I  
have frequently had to email a reminder to the board to politely  
request publication. By way of example the 12 May 09 minutes were  
published yesterday. The board should ensure that resources are made  
available to achieve these times.

<snip>

>
>>
>> Plus, doing an EGM and possibly kicking out someone for bad  
>> behaviour of
>> course causes much more effort, cost, and bad blood and if there are
>> ways to not even take any risks by having a well-balanced board in  
>> the
>> first place that is always preferable IMHO.
>
> I think we can safely say we will have a well balanced board. We have
> received over 150 email proxy votes (still being verified) from  
> around the
> world and together with the voting at the AGM I think we can safely  
> say that
> the OSMF members have had their full opportunity to state their  
> views and
> I'm really very pleased to see that they have.

That is great news. I have also been encouraging people to join the  
foundation and 150 email proxy votes is a very healthy number. Well  
done everyone.


Regards,


Peter


>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"  
>> E008°23'33"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk





More information about the osmf-talk mailing list