[Osmf-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)
mark at markiliffe.co.uk
Fri Dec 5 18:28:44 UTC 2014
Has the world gone mad?
I will never vote for anything within the OSMF phrased in those terms. We should be voting for the betterment of our project not personal removal. The board members below have been democratically voted into their positions using a valid process. If they chose to run again and are democratically voted in does that not reflect the wants of the foundation? How does proposing an arbitrary limit on board membership aid the project? We are not a country, in charge of a multimillion dollar budget, but a loose collection of friends united in the common interest of making the world’s best open and free map.
Why can’t we all just do that?
Right now this list is arguing over people not big ideas that will change our world. We can do better.
If we wish to change the process we should be setting out the how and why, not specifically calling people out. Politics is for politicians, let’s just leave it to them.
> On 5 Dec 2014, at 20:19, Johan & Marguerite <textline at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk