[Osmf-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)
steve at asklater.com
Sat Dec 6 13:29:12 UTC 2014
> On Dec 6, 2014, at 5:25 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> Am 05.12.2014 18:19, schrieb Johan & Marguerite:
>> 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.
> [Note on the side: it is extremely annoying to start new threads to
> answer mails that were posted on other threads.]
> The balance of power remark from my side referenced Kates statement that
> there was enough change in the board composition that it should be given
> a chance.
> As Steve pointed out, there is a long term fraction in the OSMF board
> which is close to him. Steve called it the "opposition", but that likely
> invokes slightly wrong associations, it is more along the lines of the
> "rightful heir(s)".
Where did I do that?
> In any case there was only a short time, October 2012 to January 2013 in
> which there was a clear (as in 4 members) reform majority in the board.
> Unluckily, my fault, as Frederik has noted, I tried to take a consensus
> approach to decision finding during that period, which is extremely easy
> to derail by an US-style opposition (perhaps Steve is right in his
> choice of words). The short lived majority ended when Steve and others
> mobbed Richard Fairhurst out of the board.
> How this all exactly plays out in practice is not visible to the
> membership. Making it transparent would require at least detailed
> minutes including voting behaviour, which at least didn't have enough
> board support in 2013.
Simon you quit in a huff. Blaming me for everything with these made up stories isn't going to help you resolve your issues. Find someone you can talk to, or a boxing club or something.
More information about the osmf-talk