[Osmf-talk] Special Resolution for General Meeting
rbanick at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 17:39:15 UTC 2015
I rather like most OSMers, our foundation board included, and trust them to do the right thing. They’ve yet to prove that instinct wrong and I will definitely be voting for this proposal. It sounds exactly like the kind of improvement I look for the Board to think through on my behalf.
Given how bright OSM’s future is, and how many wonderful things could be done with increased resources, increasing the opportuntiies for corporate sponsorship makes a lot of sense. Other non-profit groups I’m connected to receive corporate funding and without exception they’ve continued to act with independence, only now better funded. I certainly prefer this route to increased membership fees.
Improved controls and reporting would be great. I appreciate however that the financials are a thankless task and not a natural draw for mappers. Perhaps we should discuss ways to make that easier or get pro bono assistance in a separate thread or at the AGM.
Sent from Mailbox
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com>
> 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 .
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk