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

Gregory Marler info at nomoregrapes.com
Thu Dec 4 13:00:55 UTC 2014

If the desire (of any OSMF member) was to remove Henk & Oliver from the
board there are other ways to do this.

Direct vote of no-confidence, as Frederick explains this is easier in terms
of majority. That is emotionaly more loaded so perhaps not desired or the
thought was it would be seen as aggresive and less likely to get a smaller
number of votes.

Alteratively make those people stand for reelection. 1/3 of the board have
to stand down(can then run for reelection) each election and the board
decide amongst themselves(perhaps not desirable for the members). The board
could have pointed to Henk and/or Oliver to stand down, but did not. If any
board member (Mr X) did want them to stand down then the most unhelpful
thing would be for Mr X to choose to stand down themselvses. I think it was
Frederick who decided to stand down & for reelection (to avoid the board
deciding by a random generator). After the election, Simon resigned which
is equally unhelpful to pushing board members out through the usual

This voluntary standing down and resiginations happen each year. Voluntary
standing down is usually by the longest-standing candidate, but
resiginations certainly don't help board turnover.

We need to show people that the OSMF board isn't a place where "all but the
toughest stick with it". Perhaps the term limits would force this, but I'd
rather it be natural and not put a restriction on our voting pool. I'd
rather be checking th website for meeting minutes and calling out the board
when transparncy or documentation is lacking.

If I've made errors on the details, please correct me.

On 4 Dec 2014 00:18, "Frederik Ramm" <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Johan,
>    I would like to point out that if someone wanted to get rid of one or
> more directors, they could simply call for a resolution to remove those
> directors.
> Such a resolution would only require a >50% majority, and therefore be
> much more likely to succeed than a change of the Articles of
> Association, which requires a >75% majority.
> So if removing Henk and/or Oliver was indeed, as you seem to say, the
> main goal of this then it could be achieved in an easier way. (Of
> course, putting myself in the shoes of someone who leaves the board - I
> would much prefer to leave because I've hit a term limit than leaving
> because I was recalled by the members!)
> Certainly someone who is in favour of term limits will likely also be in
> favour of asking those who have already overstayed these limits to step
> down - otherwise it would be a little bit unfair, wouldn't it? And
> should the decision about the limits take into account who exactly is
> affected, or should one try to make the decision based on the merits of
> the proposal alone, without reading personal warfare into it?
> It is very likely that at *any* point in the future, if we are to
> implement term limits, they will affect some people more than others;
> *any* implementation of term limits in the future can very likely be
> constructed as being "against" someone (namely whoever is over or close
> to the limit at the time).
> So we might as well do it now.
> Bye
> Frederik
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141204/6f4c89f9/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list