[Osmf-talk] How to vote to match your view

Randy Meech randy.meech at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 20:22:54 UTC 2014

Thanks for this analysis Paul - I found it very helpful and well thought

One thing I would recommend to everyone, as this thread seems to be turning
personal: people should vote based on the issues, and not how they impact
individuals who may or may not be on the board. I've been concerned because
even the introduction of these resolutions seemed personal at the time.
That's not to say that term limits aren't a good thing, but we should think
about what's best for the organization and have faith in an engaged
electorate. Passing rules against specific people seems very short-term

Also, while I do like the theory of term limits (which Paul mentions) I am
actually undecided on these particular votes at the moment.

On Nov 30, 2014 5:00 PM, "Paul Norman" <penorman at mac.com> wrote:

> I'm taking a different approach than Frederik[1], and instead of
> outlining my views on term limits, I'm outlining how to match your views
> to what to vote on. I have my own views on term limits - on which I may
> send another message later.
> There are three items being voted on, SR1 which enacts term limits, SR2
> which causes any enacted term limits to reset if you take a break from
> the board of the same length as you had served, and OR1 which calls for
> an election to be held in 45-90 days. OR1 is independent of SR1 and SR2.
> # Term limits
> If you oppose term limits, you should vote no to SR1 and yes to SR2. SR1
> is obvious, but if term limits pass, SR2 would limit their effect. If
> SR1 fails, this results in no changes in upcoming elections.
> If you support term limits that do not reset, vote yes to SR1 and no to
> SR2. The most well known example of term limits that do not reset are
> the US presidential term limits. This results in minimal changes* for
> who has to step down next election. It would impact who could run in the
> upcoming election. Sarah has computed this[1].
> If you support term limits, but don't want them to prohibit someone from
> running for re-election indefinitely, vote yes to SR1 and SR2. This does
> not change who has to step down, but would allow those noted in Sarah's
> email to run for the upcoming election.
> I do not see an obvious viewpoint which would lead to a vote of no to
> both SR1 and SR2. This would correspond to a view that there shouldn't
> be term limits, but if there are term limits, they shouldn't ever reset.
> Term limits have been supported by Richard Weait, Frederik, Martin,
> Marek, Kathleen, Steve Coast, Mikel, Johan, Randy, Ethan, and myself.
> Term limits have been opposed by Oliver, Peter, and Henk.
> # New election
> The ordinary resolution is the only resolution which would influence the
> board composition over the next 12 months. It does not change which
> board members have to step down next election, nor does it change who
> can run in the election, but it changes when it is. It could be used to
> move the AGM schedule to fit better with the financial year.
> The idea of a "reboot" was also raised multiple times last election, and
> this gives members a chance to vote on it. It is not a complete reboot,
> but will result in 2/3 of the board having been elected within the last
> 12 months.
> Support for a new election or "reboot" has been mixed and there have
> been fewer clear statements on it.
> * Henk would have to step down in either case as it has been three years
> since election for him. If it results in other changes would depend on
> who would have chosen to step down.
> [1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2014-
> November/003089.html
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20141201/aaf9a0e9/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list