[Osmf-talk] Chairperson's Report for the AGM

nebulon42 nebulon42 at mailbox.org
Sun Dec 10 18:32:25 UTC 2017


I'll respond to the "last" message in this thread, it's easiest. As I
sense form Mikel's and Kate's response I should have done the "jerk
check" suggested by Blake before sending the mail. :) I also shouldn't
have send it from my phone. I note that for the future.

I guess I hurt your feelings, Kate, and I apologize for that!

I was not criticizing that you are a woman or that the chairperson is a
woman, Kate, please don't imply that. I also did not criticize the
amount of feelings in your report. You are entitled to any amount of
feelings as you wish and how many you want to share. I should have left
out the feelings part altogether.

But the core part of my criticism still stands and I will try to
elaborate it without the straightforwardness or polemics in my other
mail. What I maybe should have written from the start is:

First off: It is great that you shared your experience of the election
process and pointed out that there is a big "fight" to do and we should
abstain from the small "fights". Well done! Exactly what is expected
from a chairperson (please also note that I don't use chairman ;) in
times like this. But I would have suggested to post that separately or
not to cut down the summary part.

I would have expected a summary of the activities of the board in the
last year. I might be completely misguided about the content of the
chairperson's report and there might not be any guidelines or whatsoever
about it, but as Mikel talked about respect: I also think it shows
a bit lack of respect towards the membership to only give us some few
sentences about what has happened last year. You cannot expect us to
read every other mail on this list, the blog, all the minutes and so on.
I also have to disagree with Frederik on

> On the other hand, facts are usually what's obvious anyway.

No it is not. It is in the best interest of the board if you have done a
good job and made progress to communicate that to the members in a easy
to digest form. At least once a year. This is some work and I'm sure you
are quite busy. But what about having the administrative assistance
prepare the facts?

If the treasurer's report would have been that vague I also would have
criticised that and I'm sure that others would have.

To end that mail on the constructive side I would like to _politely_ ask
the chairperson and the whole board to be more extensive on the summary
of the last board period and also to do a bit more easy-to-digest
(nevertheless not meaningless) self-marketing towards the membership.
You do a good job and you really can let us know about it. By sharing
more of the work you do you might also attract more members to share the
work with the board. Maybe also a (quite) short summary after every
board meeting posted to this list would be good.

Best,
Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171210/a0b60a78/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list