[Osmf-talk] Upcoming Special General Meeting Opinions?
kathleen.danielson at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 11:56:29 UTC 2014
As other board members have shared their personal views, I'll follow suit.
I do not believe that the three proposed resolutions are in the best
interest of the OSMF as an organization or OSM as a project. In particular,
I disagree with the Ordinary Resolution which calls for another general
meeting and election to be held.
I'm saying this even though I initially supported these resolutions when
they were first put forward, and even though none of the proposals would
have an immediate effect on my position on the board. I believe I was wrong
then, and having now gained more context I don't think this is the best way
to solve the problems that we have seen with the board. We need to solve
these issues, absolutely, but I believe these proposals were put forward in
a way that capitalized on the frustrations that many of us (myself
included) were feeling with the discourse we were seeing on these mailing
lists, in order to push forward a specific action removing certain people
from the board. Perhaps that's an inaccurate reading of the situation, but
that's how I have come to interpret it over the last month or so.
I don't think that enacting these resolutions as they are currently written
will improve the OSMF, and I particularly disagree with the call for
another general meeting and election.
We've been essentially paralyzed for the past month because of these
resolutions, and voting in the ordinary resolution will keep us as a "lame
duck" board for at least 6 more weeks. Let us do the job you elected us to
On Dec 1, 2014 7:20 PM, "Kate Chapman" <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
> Hi Johan,
> On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Johan & Marguerite <textline at gmail.com>
>> Kate, could you clarify what you mean by
>> 1. the root of the problem
> I think there are a couple root problems. The first is joining the OSMF
> board seems like to some a chore someone has to do. Sometimes this means we
> don't necessarily have the right people on the board. I think part of this
> is because there seems to be two differing views within what the OSMF
> should be. Either it should do as little as possible OR we become like the
> Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). I think most of us really want something in the
> middle, but often when for example the idea of raising money for staff
> comes up the response becomes "OMG you are going to make us like the WMF".
> Though I don't think anyone or at least most people are suggesting more
> than there are some tasks that would potentially be assisted by having some
> paid support. General administrative support is one part that I think could
> be helpful.
> These differing views then spill out into the board which has been
> deadlocked due to what seem to be personality and belief differences, this
> has existed since prior to the start of my term on the board. I do think
> that things seem to be a bit better with the most recent election, though
> we haven't had time to accomplish really anything yet.
> 2. governance issues
> The very core of the governance issues to me is what don't have a vision
> or strategy. We don't really have a way to get to a point where we have a
> vision or strategy. I do feel like we are being reactionary right now.
> There are other ways to approach things. Though key to that is getting
> ourselves out of the board conflict. I think an in person board meeting and
> a chance to act as a new board is a good step forward for this.
>> Cheers, Johan
>> 2014-11-30 14:33 GMT+01:00 Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>:
>>> Hi Tim,
>>> Personally I do not believe in the proposed resolutions. I feel like we
>>> are trying to propose a solution without getting to the root of the
>>> problem. I think other than term limits there are other ways to solve the
>>> perceived issue of people being too long on the board. Simply making the
>>> terms clear, in my opinion two years would work well would help. At the
>>> moment when 1/3 of the board needs to step down every year it is never
>>> quite clear who needs to run, this is especially true when people resign.
>>> Clear terms I think would do a lot to help with these items.
>>> I also feel with 3 of the 7 board members being recently elected there
>>> has been enough changeover that the new board should be given a chance.
>>> Having an in person meeting with facilitation will be an important
>>> component to that. Though at the moment we don't have enough time for this
>>> to possibly happen before the meeting. We are aiming for early in the new
>>> year though.
>>> As a member I'll be voting no on all three resolutions. I do think at
>>> the next election at the latest we should vote on changing the terms to be
>>> a specific number. OSMF certainly has governance issues but I don't think
>>> approaching those issues in a reactionary way is the best way forward.
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk