[Osmf-talk] Special Resolution for General Meeting
gravitystorm at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 17:08:01 UTC 2015
On 18 November 2015 at 13:02, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> I've been on the brink of commenting on the proposed change for a while,
> now that the board has come forward with a reasoning it seems like a
> good time.
For me, this is a storm in a teacup. I'm more than happy for the Board
to get on with improving the corporate membership options.
If something becomes terribly wrong with it over the next few years,
then we can discuss it, or intervene with a resolution at a general
meeting, or even vote in new Board members. I don't see what's so
important about this to have to put it to the membership any time
there is a change.
> However at the same time I do have to echo Christophs concerns that it
> gives the board practically unrestrained power to change the economics
> of the OSMF.
This already exists. If the board want to sell all the servers and
move all the infrastructure to some hosting service or other, then
(modulo various practical things) it can do, and run up £x million in
fees. If it wants to fundraise only from arms manufacturers, it can do
so. If it wants to provide Board members with unlimited secret expense
accounts, it can do. If it wants to run SotM at a loss, or at a
profit, it can do either. It can drain the bank accounts and splash
out on an ad in the NYT. Whatever. These decisions are why we have a
Board in the first place - this isn't a direct democracy organisation.
> A a consequence I would have expected the board to provide at least a
> token concession on the controls front, but that seems to be completely
> missing from the current proposal.
I agree with the need for improved controls (or at the very least,
half-decent reporting), but it seems strange and somewhat
disproportionate to make this issue where you take a stand.
Also, this discussion seems to return to the theme of "Oh no, what
happens if nasty Board X does something diabolical" without any
evidence that this is even likely. The constant - usually baseless -
distrust might be one of the reasons why there are so few people
willing to stand - with only 3 days to go, we still only have the same
number of candidates as there are seats available.
The Board is full of nice people, trying hard, and until there is
evidence otherwise, we should give them the benefit of the doubt .
More information about the osmf-talk