[Osmf-talk] Partial F2F minutes

Richard Weait richard at weait.com
Wed Mar 25 10:46:10 UTC 2015

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Paul Norman
<paul.norman at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
> The face to face meeting minutes are proving to be exceptionally long, as
> might be expected for a meeting that was two full days. Also, the meeting
> format was not the easiest for taking notes or generating minutes.
> In an effort to increase transparency I am posting to the list about the
> partial minutes on the foundation site at
> http://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2015-02-16

Thank you for increasing transparency, Paul, by publishing the work in progress.

This part seems counter-transparent.

"Discussion on voting mechanics. Votes are anonymous unless a board
member wants their vote on a matter to be on the record. "...

I'd like to express my strong objection to the board voting
anonymously. All board votes should be recorded with the voting

The board works for the Foundation members.  We, members, must be able
to see in what way the board works for us.  Some of the things that
board members do will be invisible and hard to capture, like their
ongoing outreach and increasing project good will from setting
excellent examples.

Other things are really easy to capture and understand, like  board
meeting attendance and recording who votes which way, on what topic.

As an illustration, I'm pretty sure that each current member of the
board campaigned as being in favour of transparency.  And yet, a vote
was taken (perhaps? not clear from the notes yet) to make board votes
anonymous.  I think it is important to know who campaigned for
transparency and then voted for "opacity".

Please update this section of the minutes and include the votes for
and against.

In addition to my objection to board secret votes, on the grounds of
accountability, above, I'll reinforce my argument.

In OpenStreetMap we care about attribution. Please post your votes
with attribution included.

Board members may fear that their vote will be misinterpreted when the
voting matter is subtle.  The character of a discussion on a
contentious matter should be captured in the minutes.  The vote will
not be misinterpreted if the vote is accurately recorded, and
attributed. The perspective and reasoning behind the vote, in a subtle
matter, is best explained by that voter / board member, who can then
do so in their personal communication channels.

I would expect the majority of voting matters before the board to be
ordinary, administrative matters without serious contention.
Transparency must be the default and expected behaviour of the board.

Best regards and happy mapping,


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list