[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] OSMF organizational change: Management Team
gerv at gerv.net
Sun Aug 14 14:10:43 UTC 2011
On 14/08/11 10:22, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
> Just in general, IMHO you cannot copy a commercial company model
> to an a crowd based organization without loosing
> a substantial part (the heart) of the crowd.
Having a structure like this is not a "commercial company model". There
are plenty of non-profits which organize themselves this way. The change
in structure is an outworking of the increasing size of OSM. A
governance model which works well for an organization of size X does not
necessarily work well for an organization of size 10X.
> The current reorganization model is a good example of
> how things will go wrong. By creating a selected group
> of "uber-osm-ers" (not necessarily intentional)
> to focus on strategy and future of the project they will
> *automatically* and involuntarily create distance between them
> and the organization.
The group to focus on strategy and the future of the project already
exists - it's just that it's distracted by other concerns.
They are also elected - so if you think they are distant from the rest
of the organization, either stand yourself in the election or get
someone else to who you think has the right idea.
> This has already begun with the introduction of
> the license, a concept that came from "the top",
> a group of people terribly concerned with OSM (in a positive sense)
> that came to believe the future of the project is too important
> to be left to the anarchist "crowd" .
I think your explanation of the licence change does not match what
anyone involved has said is the reason.
> Even if the OdBL were the best solution for OSM, the introduction
> from the top-down (as it has happened) creates trouble in our kind
> of organization.
How exactly does one introduce a change like that "from the bottom up"?
More information about the osmf-talk