[Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM
frederik at remote.org
Fri Apr 5 13:34:22 UTC 2013
On 04/05/13 14:15, Simon Poole wrote:
> I'm slightly surprised that there is no discussion on points 4 to 6. In
> particular I would have at least thought that some discussion on the
> democratic elements (resolutions from outside of the board) would take
> place. Can we in that case assume that everybody is fine with the
> proposals as suggested (without any restriction on proposals)?
I am slightly uneasy about one point that is perhaps a bit too
procedural for the AoA - but with all this voting and especially online
voting, I would like the process to be designed in a way that is
reasonably safe against tampering. "Reasonably safe", for me, means that
at no point must there be a way for a single individual to tamper with
the process undetected.
* Who keeps the list of people who are allowed to vote, and how can we
make sure that this list is actually correct?
* Who records the votes, and how can we make sure that no mistakes are
Of course if votes were public then all this would be a non-issue since
any mistakes or tampering could be detected by third parties. If votes
are not public then we must at least have some kind of many-eyeballs way
to make this reasonably safe. What we currently have is not bad - with
several people receiving and counting the e-mail votes - however as far
as I know when these pepole check whether someone is entitled to vote
they all compare against a non-public list of members which they have no
means of verifying.
The same for a wording like "an EGM can be called ... supported by 10%
of the membership". In order for this to not ring hollow, a member must
at least have the *chance* to drum up the 10% support (and the chance to
know when he has reached the 10%). Given that such an EGM might likely
be the call of a member who is unhappy with something the board does, it
is possible that trust between the member and the board is flaky at
best. So how is that person going to reach the other members, and how
can they determine whether they already have 10% support without knowing
who the other members are? Could board not always say "nope, we've just
signed up 100 new members that don't support your EGM but we won't tell
you who they are so good luck in rallying them to your cause, and
they've all opted out of their name being listed"?
We must think about making the list of members public (and I'm not
Otherwise none of these "democratic" things will work well.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the osmf-talk