[Osmf-talk] Running

[Clifford Snow]

I mistakenly replied to just Serge, Below is my response to Serge.

On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Serge Wroclawski <swroclawski at gmail.com>
 wrote:

> Frederik's airing of the problems at the board is, in my view,
> completely justified.  These problems are not surface deep and they
> need exploration.
>
> The fact is that Frederik has served the board and has not been public
> about these issues. Only now, while the board issues are being aired
> in the open is he taking these steps. I view this as an honorable
> whistleblowing activity like those of Serpico.
>

Frederik did that in his manifesto, and did a good job. Although I not sure
that it raises to the Serpico level.

>
> The only alternative process I can see would be something like a
> referendum by the membership to create an independent investigative
> committee which would create a report, but this process would be
> length and with a community as small as we are (by OSMF membership
> numbers) a lot of overhead.
>

I agree that a referendum to investigate isn't called for. If we had
financial irregularities or similar serious malfeasance, a independent
investigation might be called for. I don't think this reaches that level.

>
> Each of us may evaluate Frederik's statements differently. Some may
> agree with him, while others do not agree with his actions, but I for
> one would like to have a better understanding of the problems that the
> board members see on the board in oder to begin to address them.
>
> Saying "the Board is Broken" does not allow us to identify what the
> actual problems are, not does it give the membership the opportunity
> to discuss those issues with the board members. Furthermore by asking
> Frederik to stop, you are stifling our understanding of the problems
> and the conversation in general.
>
>
> We need more understanding of the problems, not less.
>

Serge, where did I single out Frederik? I replied to a thread. I purposely
did not single anyone out. I suppose I could have started a new thread but
thought it best to reply to this one.

What it sounds to me is Board members attempting to sell us on their
version of events. At this point who is "right" is lost in all of the
accusations. How does that improve the situation? Trying to evaluate the
membership list issue, for example, loses the bigger point. How the Board
functions and what is needed to fix the problems. As members we should
expect, and hold the Board accountable for fixing their issues. I do hope
the Board consults with the community.

(BTW - my old management style would have been to lock them in a room
together until they could jointly provide me a solution. Because they would
like mine.)

What I hoped to accomplish is to stop hashing the membership issue so we
could start focusing building a function Board. There have been so good
points brought up, such as more face to face meetings. Fortunately we have
some good candidates running for the Board. I'm optimistic.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20141026/35cde2e7/attachment.html>