[Osmf-talk] Upcoming Special General Meeting Opinions?

[Alex Barth]

I just voted against the resolution to install a 4 year term limit (Item 1)
and against the resolution to elect a new board (item 3). I voted for a
term limit reset (item 2) in case a term limit passes.

I recommend you do the same. Here's why:

- Item 1 is installing a term limit that's too short and proposed for the
wrong reasons. A term limit is a safe guard against abuse and not a
mechanism for getting new blood into an organization. We want good people
to work longer for the board than 4 years. We have elections to vote out
the ones we're not satisfied with.
- Item 3 (reelections) would continue the paralysis on the board for
another couple of months without a real perspective for change. The year is
short, I'd rather see the current board get to work fast and those who
regret not running this time around get active in working groups to build a
better OSMF and position for a 2015 race that promises to be exciting.

Alex


On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Henk Hoff <toffehoff at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> *Van:* Paul Norman [mailto:penorman at mac.com]
>
> Henk, you appear to have missed the question. You are claiming these AoA
> changes have flaws in how they implement term limits. I'm asking, how would
> you implement term limits differently, with specifics. You have replied
> with an argument against term limits at all - which was different than my
> question.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don’t think I’ve missed the question. I’ve constantly mentioned that we
> need to be clear on the underlying problem. When there is no problem, there
> will be no need for a change of our articles.
>
>
>
> But also, there has never been a unwritten guideline on term limits. There
> are so many other ways to have forms of term limits without the need to
> change our articles.
>
>
>
> We are an organisation that has been very open. We have no approval
> mechanism for edits (because we believe that people want to do good),
> everyone can join our working groups (even non-OSMF members), we hardly
> have moderation on our mailinglists, and I can go on. We are a very open
> organisation.
>
> We have for the board a transparent and democratic election process. We’ve
> recently introduced the STV voting mechanism. In the past incumbents have
> not always been re-elected (when they were also running for re-election),
> and former board members don’t always get elected again. There is no
> problem!
>
> Let’s not make our articles unneeded complex.
>
>
>
> When a board member is running for re-election, I’m sure the membership
> will ask her/him why they need to re-elect her/him for the x-th time. Also,
> I can imagine there will be discussions within the board about whether a
> board member should or should not run for re-election.
>
>
>
> About the current proposal: It is way too restrictive. E.g. why only 4
> years in total (which does not match with the current term length)? And
> looking at the “reset clause”, it is unfair to people who have been part of
> the board. And the mechanism mentioned will only triggers procedures how to
> work around them. That’s the last thing we want.
>
> And why only for the board, and why not working groups? Ilya mentioned in
> another post that the board has only little power within the organisation.
>
>
>
> Henk
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141206/f0b124f6/attachment.html>