[Osmf-talk] Elections: Avoid Mandate Creep
frederik at remote.org
Tue Aug 30 14:48:35 UTC 2011
On 08/30/11 16:38, Tom Chance wrote:
> I have rehearsed this argument more fully in previous emails and on my
> blog, but very minimal governance is only good for members of the
> community rich in time and technical skills, and will most likely lead
> to bad governance of the sort that causes friction in the community,
> e.g. the decision to change the license.
Instead, let's rather have the Great Unwashed boss around those rich in
time and technical skills because the latter are in the minority and
therefore deserve to be bossed around. This will certainly reduce
friction and lead to a happy life for all ;)
> I will be reading manifestos with interest looking for candidates who
> can go beyond promises for "better communication" to describe how they
> would improve governance and management, and beyond "more vision" to
> describe what their vision for the Foundation actually is.
It's ok to have a vision for the Foundation as long as people don't try
to impose a vision on OSM.
I still maintain that there is an important difference between OSMF and
OSM. An OSMF board member does not speak for OSM any more than Joe
Mapper. Only one in 1000 mappers is a member of OSMF. OSMF's mission is
to support OSM - not shape, control, direct, or lead OSM. If OSMF want
to develop a vision on how to best continue supporting OSM, that's
great, and if this leads OSMF to be able to maximize the support they
offer to OSM, OSM is certainly not going to say no to that.
More information about the osmf-talk