[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] OSMF organizational change: Management Team
frederik at remote.org
Sun Aug 14 00:27:32 UTC 2011
Andy Allan wrote:
> However, when you end up with the
> Board meeting every single week to discuss routine happenings, and
> when the Board is trying to (outside of the meetings) also get a whole
> load of routine stuff done, then you're asking a lot from the elected
> members and probably missing out on the bigger picture. I for one
> wouldn't want to stand for election to the board as-was, but if the
> board now meets only a few times a year, and concentrates on the big
> picture, then that's much better for everyone.
In saying that, aren't you confirming Milo's fears of a hierarchy? You
are happily accepting the notion that there are some at the top who have
the "big picture" and do - pardon my sarcasm - some strategic waffling,
whereas the underlings in the Management Committee and the working
groups will do their job and occasionally take orders from above
(because they, in contrast, don't have the big picture).
I see that this could work well, but I also see that it could go
horribly wrong. I'm not even sure if we want our board to be concerned
with the big picture. I see the danger of the board becoming estranged
from the project, spending their time talking to figures in government
and industry and sponsor organisations, devising schemes on how to get
The most important thing to our project is the the day-to-day
nitty-gritty, from the running of the servers to dealing with trouble to
writing up stuff on the Wiki or, indeed, mapping.
Would it be terribly wrong to expect those at the top of the
organisation to be involved in these things?
> The Management Committee has started as Board + WG reps, but I expect
> that to change over time. Some elected officers may not have the time
> to deal with the day-to-day nitty gritty
I don't think someone who is not involved should serve on the board. I
was actually quite happy with the board setting up a "strategic working
group" - even if this doesn't seem to have settled very well yet, it
made clear that strategic - pardon - waffling is by no means the main
thing that OSMF should be doing with everyone else taking a back seat,
no, it is but one aspect and on the same level as stuff done in other
OSM is becoming more and more "en vogue" for big players in government
and industry to concern themselves with. What you are essentially doing
with your argument is you're removing the essence of OSM from the board
(saying basically that they should be concerned with oversight and
vision), which in turn means that being on the OSMF board will become a
job like being on the board of anything else. Since Management Team and
Working Groups do all the "nitty-gritty", you can stuff the board with
respectable individuals from government and industry who maybe don't
know shit about OSM but hey, maybe they have a good track record in
management and they know how to leverage out potential, or whatever.
> tl;dr - the Board should only do what the Board *must* do, the other
> stuff best done by the Management Committee
That's not a bad idea per se, but I'm still against creating a structure
where total non-OSMers suddenly become electable. I mean we could elect
someone with no OSM clue today but even if we made that mistake it would
quickly become obvious that he's unsuitable; in today's structure, a
board member who is not involved in OSM other than through his board
position would have a very hard time.
And I think that is a good thing.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the osmf-talk