[Osmf-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)

Johan & Marguerite textline at gmail.com
Sat Dec 6 18:06:57 UTC 2014


Frederik, I yesterday asked you to express your view, from your
perspective, on the following: "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."

Simon today answered that it's due to a long term fraction within the board
which is (if I interpret his posting correct) lined up with Steve and not
reform minded. Even if that is the case, than I still don't understand that
a change of 2 old faces will change the balance of power in a board of 7.

You haven't responded yet in this thread. But I'm still interested in your
view on this. Could you please express it?

Cheers, Johan

2014-12-06 13:25 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:

>
>
> 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)".
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141206/590539c6/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list