[Osmf-talk] Back to Earth, Back to basics

Mon Nov 17 20:14:20 UTC 2014

Thanks for your review Michael.

I'm still in somewhat of a shock by some of the words written down in the
past weeks. I can't figure out why people deeply in love with OSM start
personal attacks on one another. Showing lack of trust in one another,
fearing coups etcetera.

To me, this problem is more than having a lack of people interested in
doing things for OSMF. It might have to do with respect. Today a newspaper
in my country had a profile of a man working for disabled people. I
personally recognized a statement of him:
“You have to really empathize with others and turn your ego off. Because if
what the other says, touches your ego, you want to respond, admit or deny.
Then you really do not listen. Your ego prevents contact with others. It
starts with yourself profoundly accepting that the other is always right.”

I still hope that the people attacking one another will be able to find a
common ground of respect in their love for OSM.

Johan

2014-11-17 15:21 GMT+01:00 Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz>:

>  I am using Jonathan's response below as a springboard for a new thread.
> He happens to coincide exactly with my personal thinking and the timing of
> his comment on "a clearly stated argument" was perfect, since I was in the
> middle of trying to write one.  The only thing I would add on the EGM thing
> is that there does remain an issue of unpredictability in the exact length
> of each individual's term. If we consider that to be important, it is
> easily resolvable thanks to Simon's push to generally clean-up the Articles
> of Association. We can take some time to think about the exact wording, and
> we can have it in place at or by next year's annual election. End of my
> comments as an individual OSMF member.
>
> But to basics. I am the Management Team chair. The Management Team is well
> thought out, thanks in major part to Matt Amos [1]. But, well, in my
> English county of Yorkshire, we have a saying, "About as much use as a
> chocolate teapot".  That is an exaggeration, but we have had great trouble
> in successfully implementing it. In early October I began analyzing why.
> The final end result is a review of the OSMF, our successes and our
> problems:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ewmjc/OpenStreetMap_Foundation/2014_Review
>
> The board have been presented with the document  for their meeting on
> Thursday 20th November.  At that meeting I shall tender my courtesy
> resignation and we'll see what happens.
>
> The document itself is l-o-n-g. So if you want to know what I think is
> wrong, skip to the "General Operations" section.
>
> I am still working on improving it based on some early feedback and the
> simple fact is that when I collate things, I start to see things I did not
> before. I have also managed to upset two of our hard-working and reliable
> working group members.
>
> This is a review, not a plan and not a vision.  My core conclusion is that
> what IS wrong is quite simple: Too few people doing too many things.
>
> If you feel there is some merit in my conclusions, then I think the board
> can go on to make a general operational plan with your help. To stimulate
> that process, I have added my current conclusions under "What Next".
>
> I naturally welcome comments, will read everything and incorporate useful
> stuff.  But I will not likely respond, I have taken to much time out of my
> proffessional life already! I also work in fits and starts on OSMF matters.
>
> Mike
>
> [1] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Management_Team/Statutes
>      http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Management_Team
>
> On 14/11/2014 14:34, Jonathan Harley wrote:
>
>
> Yes, of course anyone who takes the trouble to pay up and join the OSMF
> cares about the OSMF. That's about 600 of us, then.
>
> Personally, I haven't contributed to the acrimonious debate about board
> size and term limits partly because of the tone of the debate, but mostly
> because I have absolutely no confidence that tinkering with those details
> is going to fix the problems with OSMF.
>
> I've yet to even hear a clearly stated argument about what IS wrong with
> OSMF, apart from Steve's suggestion that the board are "thinking too
> small", which seems very plausible. I've heard no convincing argument that
> reducing the board size or introducing term limits will help, and obviously
> they would harm continuity, with the potential to be disastrous if we reach
> the situation where nobody well qualified is actually allowed to stand. So
> as it stands, I'm likely to vote against any resolution at the EGM; I
> prefer the status quo, where I get to vote for the best candidates
> available without limitation.
>
> Those are my reasons for not contributing; I can only guess that other
> people's might very well be similar. People who prefer the status quo often
> keep quiet.
>
> Jon.
>
>
> On 14/11/14 08:05, Andy Robinson wrote:
>
>
> “It's possible that 90% of the OSMF membership don't care at all about the
> OSMF” Possible? no I doubt that very much. If one decides to be a member of
> the OSMF I believe one is likely to have a very caring interest, otherwise
> why bother?
>
> Rather than a member of the choir from this outlook I’d say you were
> acting like the preacher.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141117/9d4ec155/attachment.html>