[Osmf-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)
Johan & Marguerite
textline at gmail.com
Fri Dec 5 17:19:24 UTC 2014
2014-12-04 1:17 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> 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
> 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?
yesterday Simon posted: 'Actually the discussion about term limits started
as a reaction to Steves attempt at a comeback iirc.'
Your suggestion that a resolution to remove unwanted directors could have
worked better, would not have worked since Steve wasn't a director at the
time the resolutions for term limits were drafted (November 2). In his
explanation at the time Simon mentioned that the resolutions are there to
get new faces on the board. To me that is the same as removing old faces
from the board.
There was momentum at the time (as pointed out in a posting of November 9),
so at the Buenos Aires GM (November 8) the three resolutions were supported
by more than 5% of the membership. There was no way back anymore to change
or withdraw the resolutions.
Thus: the goal of the elections this sunday is to remove the old faces from
the board (that is Henk and Oliver). The way to achieve that goal is
to have as much members as possible to vote yes to the three resolutions,
otherwise 'it is very likely that the board will implement placebo limits
that only serve to pacify their electorate and have no real effect'. The
technical explanation is often the other way around and forgets about the
starting point (goal to stop Steve and to get rid of the old faces at the
board). This technical explanation is: "The goal is to have term limits.
The consequence is that Henk and Oliver are out. But any term limit will
effect board members, so it's no issue".
Simon recently (November 30) urges the members to vote three times yes on
the resolutions, since the balance of power in the board has not changed at
all since November 8. Since removing the old faces will just change 2 faces
in a board of 7 I don't understand that. Frederik, could you, from your
perspective, give your view on this?
> 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.
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk