[Osmf-talk] Members rights
Andy Robinson (blackadder)
blackadderajr at googlemail.com
Fri Aug 21 09:49:33 UTC 2009
Frederik Ramm [mailto:frederik at remote.org] wrote:
>Sent: 21 August 2009 10:19 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>Cc: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Members rights
>Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>> Frederik, a couple of points you make here I think I need to question.
>> say re board meetings that "meeting minutes have not always been
>> forthcoming". I'm not aware of any minutes being missing.
>Maybe I chose the wrong words then. What I wanted to say it that it
>sometimes took very long to get them, not that they were not available
I hold my hand up on that one and it's something I will address if
re-elected. Recording minutes when you are actively involved in the
discussion is difficult at best and doesn't help get minutes out in a timely
manner. After the meeting there always seems something more important to
deal with. What we really need at the meetings is a recorder, who writes up
what is said and then the secretary edits down to a draft for board approval
as the public record. If there are any members who can commit to making the
monthly meetings and write up notes I'm sure the whole board would welcome
This also leads onto Working Groups. Mike has been able to keep on top of
Licence working group minutes with assistance but as yet the other groups
have not. The board needs to rectify this in the coming year. Again I
suspect additional help is needed to ensure that the task is maintained.
This area is one the board identified for potential OSMF staff involvement,
but we are still very much at early days in that respect and I think for
this coming year very likely the board will need something in place that's
community rather than employee based.
>> Secondly you say that "quite a number of things that I personally found
>> relevant never found their way into the minutes". I'm not sure I
>> what you mean here as I can't recall you having been present at any of
>> board meetings.
>I've never been present in any board meeting, just talked to people who
>were! I'm just saying that there is a lot of stuff going on at board
>meetings which does not find its way into the published material but
>which is quite relevant for judging whether or not someone does their
>job well and whether or or not there is "friction".
Always difference of opinion during debate in any group, but I would say
that we really don't have any real friction at board meetings. Its one of
the reasons I was happy to stand again that I generally find it a rewarding
and friendly experience. If it was a grind I think I would be on the lookout
for a more friendly group to participate in. As a volunteer doing it outside
work hours it's important that it's an enjoyable experience. There have been
times as a result of external friction when I have considered is it all
worth it, but each time I go our for an hours mapping I understand how
important it is to ignore the crap that sadly seems all to evidently come
with the position.
>This is not an omission on your or anybody else's part - meeting minutes
>all over the world leave out lots of personal details which are not
>relevant for the day to day business but might very well be relevant for
>deciding whether you want to re-elect someone. (Where in the world would
>you read - and this is a completely fictitious example - "Director A was
>sulking and refusing to speak to director B throughout the meeting.
>Director B continuously made fun of director A but was unable to elicit
>a response." - this is simply not something that belongs in the meeting
>notes but something that you might well hear over a beer later, and it
>is something that would perhaps make you think whether you would
>re-elect A or B!)
>> 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
>> world and together with the voting at the AGM I think we can safely say
>> the OSMF members have had their full opportunity to state their views and
>> I'm really very pleased to see that they have.
>As Mike Collinson recently wrote that we have "around 230 members", that
>would put us at 66% voter participation. That's a number many
>organisations can only dream of, and I'm very pleased as well.
More information about the osmf-talk