[Osmf-talk] OSMF Members Request for a General Meeting
mikel_maron at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 12 16:36:15 UTC 2014
> l haven't checked recently but it would effect Henk, Dermot, Oliver, Mikel and Steve if I recall correctly.
Would be very good to see how this would specifically affect all current and past Board members, in terms of how much longer they can serve, or how long they would have to wait to serve again.
Also, Simon, since you are proposing and advocating these amendments, would be good to know your intentions in regard to future Board elections. Would you be putting yourself in the running again, if spaces on the Board opened up?
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Wednesday, November 12, 2014 7:08 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On 11 November 2014 20:45:30 GMT-03:00, Johan & Marguerite <textline at gmail.com> wrote:
>>2014-11-11 22:06 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:
>>To be clear about this: am I correct that Henk and Oliver would be the
>l haven't checked recently but it would effect Henk, Dermot, Oliver, Mikel and Steve if I recall correctly.
>>1. I like the idea Mikel had about clearly stating a single term limit
>>2. I would like to see the 2014 financials on the agenda of the next GM
>IMHO if the 3rd resolution is accepted the board should use the opportunity and use the GM as the yearly meeting, breaking the linkage with SOTM. Naturally 2014 financial would be presented at such a meeting. As I've already pointed out from a regulatory pov the report needs to be distributed to the members before the end of May in any case, so this would work out nicely.
>>3. I guess the words 'can be' in the resolution on term limit reset
>>should either be set to 'is', either a decision mechanism should be
>>introduced to decide on 'can be'.
>>4. I don't understand why the board needs 7 people. Given the amount of
>>work on the board it should be possible to get the board down to 4 or 5
>>people. Which will more suit the amount of work, the effectiveness and
>>lower the cost of a face-to-face meeting
>A larger board makes it , more difficult to gain complete control. Why do you think Steve was suggesting reducing it to 3? Further a board which is no longer a mashup of operational and strategic roles could and should have a number of different view points and opinions.
>>I would not mind giving the current board several weeks to come up with
>>proposal on a change of the AoA regarding the term limit, the number of
>>directors and a proposal for a GM early 2015 including the 2014
>This is not necessary given that the process to require a meeting has completed and the board has essentialy no leeway except from a timing point of view.
>Written with a pen on a Galaxy Note 10. I
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: APG v1.1.1
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>osmf-talk mailing list
>osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk