[Osmf-talk] Partial F2F minutes

[nebulon42]

Thanks for pointing this out. From this paragraph it is not clear to me
whether this was a rather informal discussion or if this changes the
publishing of voting results.

If it does this is quite undesirable and should not be changed, because
this means quite the opposite of transparency.

It would be good to have a clarification on this matter from the board.

Best,
nebulon42

Am Mittwoch, den 25.03.2015, 06:46 -0400 schrieb Richard Weait:
> 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
> record.
> 
> 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,
> 
> Richard
> 
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk