[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] OSMF organizational change: Management Team
ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.gremmen at cetest.nl
Mon Aug 15 07:17:25 UTC 2011
@Gervase I did not ask if other non-profit made the same mistake or not (sheep are all-over),
but to *prove* that this works for a flat crowd based organization the OSM is(was).
Or actually, I did not ask, but tell you it *will not*.
Apparently the same mistake as everywhere (administrations / big companies) has
hit the board: lack of time, so a intermediate layer is being installed.
I a huge project as OSM very soon the need for other levels will rise
and the project will cease to exist in the mind of the contributors.
Only the sheep that clicked the CT arrangement without thinking and
because of that do not have a real commitment to OSM will contribute until they
found another colored box to click in another project. (The famous Majority of 120k+ )
And the board will rule, and the management team manages and the working groups work
and all will wonder why the project stalls now it's so wonderfully organized.
Let me tell you again, OSM is a crowd based organization. The CORE of it is
used to make consensus like decisions after extensive discussions on fora and
mailing lists. This is what motivates the real OSM-er, having something to create that
has been decided upon themselves.
This is were strategy must be done, and not somewhere in London
by a team calling themselves "THE BOARD" telling the rest of the OSM there *IS*
a difference between *us* and *them*.
And do not come with the BullShit of elections and choose another OSMF/BOARD member.
We live in democratic countries with elections and we all know where that leads to,
especially in the UK these days.
Van: Gervase Markham [mailto:gerv at gerv.net]
Verzonden: Sunday, August 14, 2011 4:11 PM
Aan: ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
CC: Frederik Ramm; Andy Allan; osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] OSMF organizational change: Management Team
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