[Osmf-talk] Upcoming Special General Meeting Opinions?

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Nov 28 19:54:16 UTC 2014


Tim,

On 11/28/2014 07:44 PM, Tim Waters wrote:
> May I ask that those Board members please feel encouraged to explain a
> little bit more about the meeting at this stage?

My opinion in brief is that

* I agree with the idea of term limits (even though the proposed term
limits will mean that I have only two years left on the board).
Therefore I would be glad if the proposed resolutions were passed. Four
years on the board is enough for anybody, and there's plenty of other
jobs in OSM(F) that you can do if you're still full of energy after
that. I'd go so far as to say that once you've spent more than four
years on the board you're more likely to be a hindrance for progress
than a motor.

* If this leads to a new election and the need to find new board members
to replace those who are above their limits, fair enough - nobody on the
board is indispensable, nor should anybody be, an the last election
featured a number of promising candidates who up to now never had
participated in board work.

* Even more than that, I like the fact that for the first time, members
have asserted themselves politically, and at least to a small degree
forced the hand of the board. I would like to see more participation
like that in the future; I would like to see a strong membership who
discuss issues among themselves, who demand answers from the board they
have elected, and who do not shy away from making resolutions to force
the board to do one thing or another (even up to firing board members
who don't deliver). Therefore, what I most hope to see is a high
turnout, whether people vote for or against, and I would like to see
more membership participation in the future. There is a good legal
framework for this in the UK Companies Act, and is there for a reason -
use it!

It has been claimed that term limits are unnecessary because the members
can already freely decide to not elect someone again after a couple of
years. I hold against that; incumbents always have an unfair bonus
against newcomers, and also this could only function if board work were
transparent enough for members to see who exactly did, said, and voted
what. They don't enjoy that transparency at the moment, so how would
they know if a board member has done a good job and deserves to be
re-elected? And anyway, four years of "good job" is more than can be
expected even from the bravest.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list