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

Johan & Marguerite textline at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 22:57:53 UTC 2014


Taking two questions from the other thread 'Upcoming Special General
Meeting Opinions', posted by Jaak Laineste:


2014-12-03 16:29 GMT+01:00 Jaak Laineste (Nutiteq) <jaak at nutiteq.com>:

>
>
>
> Btw, what is the alternative to the ordinary resolution - when the next GM
> and elections will be when the GM call resolution will not pass?
>
>
That's a good question. To my knowledge there is no next GM planned yet.
Though it should be logical, even a must, to have one planned anyway. For
practical reasons for example in conjunction with SOTM-US.


> p.s. Specific question to Simon - is it true that the whole affair is just
> to remove certain people from the board? If so, whom and why?
>
>
>
Of course I can't answer a question for Simon, hopefully he pickes up that
glove.

But I would like to express my view on this. I see two different levels of
discussion, or ways to look at these elections. The first one is a
technical one. The second one is a personal one.

*The technical view*
In the technical view the members called for a GM with three resolutions.
Companies Act requires to have a vote on that, which takes place this
Sunday. The outcome of these resolutions will (on three yesses) be that
Oliver and Henk have to leave the board at the next election which takes
place within 90 days after this Sunday. The goal in this technical view:
respond to the wishes of the electorate on the mailing list.

Bridging to the next view: in the technical view it's ok to bring forward
the wishes of the electorate, but it's not necessary to ask the electorate
to vote three times yes. It's enough to provide all information in full
transparancy, so that a wise choice can be made by the member. So, why
lobbying the electorate?

*The personal view*
The personal view is more difficult to see, but reading through several
postings gives a picture. The goal in this personal view: getting rid of
Henk and Oliver. Yes, these are battle elections, which started in a highly
emotional discussion where words like 'Junta' were being used. 'The balance
of power in the board has not changed at all', according to Simon, since
the last elections (one month ago). So therefore he is lobbying the
electorate at the moment to vote yes on all three resolutions 'In the
interest of the OSM project and the OSMF'. Maybe a member who wants to vote
three times yes can explain what, in a board of seven, whill change in the
balance of power when Henk and Oliver are out and 2 fresh starters are in.
I don't understand it. The following words are also a signal of the battle:
'Without us sending that clear signal
to the board, it is very likely that the board will implement placebo
limits that only serve to pacify their electorate and have no real effect.'
Likely? Implement placebo limits? It sounds like a threat: the current
board is not capable, vote three yesses now or doom awaits.

Dermot just wrote he is sad. Yep, so am I and for me it's because I love
OSM and I find it very frustrating to see OSM'ers battling. While Simon
could have taken a step back in the past days (also for the sake of OSM) by
showing trust in the current board he didn't, but instead chose to try get
Henk and Oliver out. Whatever the outcome there will be no winners at all
this Sunday. Trust does not return by fighting a battle.

My personal opinion in the elections is that it's not bad to deal with
several governance issues within OSMF. More debate under an active
membership is an important one, more important than term  limits. I see
room for an OSMF governance working group thinking about these matters.
After trust is restored for the sake of OSM.

Cheers, Johan

ps just to make sure: I respect the things people like Simon, Henk and
Oliver do/have done for OSM. They often work their balls out of their pants
(these very last words may be moderated).



> Jaak
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>

2014-12-03 19:19 GMT+01:00 nebulon42 <nebulon42 at yandex.com>:

> Speaking of moderation: Who decides what the truth is? You?
> To an uninformed person this may sound like the "establishment" trying
> to shut up critics. A board member like you should be more careful
> choosing the tone of his messages, even if this mail by Johan was
> definitely not nice (so others should choose their tone more wisely
> too).
>
> nebulon42
>
> Am Montag, den 01.12.2014, 21:10 +0100 schrieb Oliver Kühn:
> > +1
> >
> > I suggest to have stricter moderation on this list as we see an
> > increased amount of bullshitting.
> >
> > Am 01.12.2014 um 20:58 schrieb Steve Coast:
> >
> > > I don’t think that was really necessary, and it’s not particularly
> > > true either.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Dec 1, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Johan & Marguerite
> > > > <textline at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2014-12-01 12:40 GMT+01:00 Henk Hoff <toffehoff at gmail.com>:
> > > >         Like I said, there are many ways how to introduce term
> > > >         limits. I all depends
> > > >         on what problem you want to solve.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Since voting in favour of Special Resolution 1 means voting
> > > > against you continuing your Board work it could be that SR 1 was
> > > > drafted up because you are being seen as the problem. Why? Well,
> > > > maybe because you were active in organizing SOTM's without
> > > > drafting up meeting notes, maybe it was because you didn't share
> > > > the full member lists to other board members. I wish the
> > > > membership wisdom in voting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers, Johan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > > Van: Ilya Zverev [mailto:ilya at zverev.info]
> > > > Verzonden: maandag 1 december 2014 12:06
> > > > Aan: Henk Hoff
> > > > CC: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > > Onderwerp: Re: [Osmf-talk] How to vote to match your view
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         You are opposing term limits. It's not "this proposal vs.
> > > >         better one", it's
> > > >         term limits or status quo. You (and the rest of the Board)
> > > >         had a week to
> > > >         discuss and fix Simon's resolutions, and three weeks to
> > > >         come with an
> > > >         alternative proposal (and it's the Board who set the
> > > >         deadline).
> > > >
> > > >         This behaviour, "do perfectly or do nothing", is what have
> > > >         been hindering
> > > >         OSM development for past years, and I hope the new Board
> > > >         would actively
> > > >         oppose that. We are not a multimillion industry that would
> > > >         lose stocks
> > > >         because of non-perfect actions.
> > > >
> > > >         Passing these resolutions is exactly the way to attract
> > > >         more good people to
> > > >         do things. It's not like Board members who step down
> > > >         suddenly would lose all
> > > >         will to help OSM because of that.
> > > >
> > > >         IZ
> > > >
> > > >         > Where does it say that I'm opposing term limits?
> > > >
> > > >         > I'm opposing term limits as stipulated in the current
> > > >         resolutions.
> > > >         > There are many other ways in how you could introduce
> > > >         term limits.
> > > >         > The resolutions are unbalanced proposals. We need to
> > > >         have a situation
> > > >         > where we can attract good people to do things. Not to
> > > >         shut people out.
> > > >
> > > >         > Henk
> > > >
> > > >         > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > > >         > Van: Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
> > > >
> > > >         > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         > _______________________________________________
> > > >         > osmf-talk mailing list
> > > >         > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > >         > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         IZ
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         _______________________________________________
> > > >         osmf-talk mailing list
> > > >         osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > >         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > osmf-talk mailing list
> > > > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20141203/7eaffae7/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list