[Osmf-talk] OPENSTREETMAP FOUNDATION - NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
richard at weait.com
Wed Jul 29 12:40:15 UTC 2009
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Nick Black<nick at blacksworld.net> wrote:
> I think the issue here is that we all want to have a balanced Board
> that represents the interests and wishes of the membership. People
> will naturally be concerned when there are several people on the Board
> from one 'bloc'. That blog could be a company, a country, or a
[ ... ]
> In short, I think that the sentiment behind Richard W's post is well
> placed - he wants to ensure we have a balanced Board that represents
> the interests of the OSM community. But the method for achieving this
> that he suggests is not appropriate. Rather than impose restrictions
> on the democratic process, we should be working to strengthen it.
Most (all?) democratic jurisdictions permit only one vote per person,
per elected position. Is that a restriction on the democratic
process? Yes, it is a restriction, but one that supports the
The European Commission consists of one representative per member
state (plus the rotating president). Have they restricted the
democratic process? ;-) Of course not.
Some counter questions then. For democracy.
How would a board composed entirely of employees / contractors /
directors of a single company benefit the foundation and the community
at large? Is that monolithic board desirable? Even if the company is
If a monolithic, single company, board is not desirable. If seven of
seven board members paid from the same pot is not a benefit to the
community then where would you draw the line? What is the maximum
number of board members that should be permitted from a single
My answer; one delegate per company.
More information about the osmf-talk