Richard Weait 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
> viewpoint.
[ ... ]
> 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
democratic principles.

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
Ordinance Survey?

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.

Best regards,

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list