[Osmf-talk] 2018 a third episode of entryism by HOT US Inc at OSMF Board after 2015 and 2017: call 4 action (candidates/members) for a balanced OSMF Board

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed Dec 12 20:51:50 UTC 2018

On 12.12.2018 00:53, nicolas chavent wrote:
> Tobias Knerr proposed in his manifesto to "Limit board members from
> the same org to 1 seat", since this manifesto item has not yet been
> picked up in the Questions/Answers section of the Board Elections wiki
> nor in the discussions, it would be great to hear about it from the
> other candidates and members.

Thanks for your support! I would also be interested in the opinions of
other candidates about this idea, as improving the representation of
unaffiliated volunteers on the board is an issue I strongly care about,
and I believe my proposed change could be an important step in that

Because your mail links this situation to a specific criticism of HOT,
however, I would like to emphasize the following, as I've already done
in my manifesto: I do not believe that any members of our community are
acting in bad faith. Nor is this about members of HOT, or any other
group, being instructed or obligated to act in a particular manner. None
of that is required to care about the composition of the board, though.
It's sufficient to recognize that our perspectives on OSM are inevitably
shaped by our background, and if many or most board members see OSM at
least partially through the lens of a particular organization or sector
(such as humanitarian work), this is bound to have a tangible effect on
the foundation's direction.

OSM enjoys a thriving ecosystem today, with thousands of organizations
making valuable contributions – large or small – to our project. In
light of that, I believe that no single organization is so important to
OSM on its own that it makes sense for its members to hold a majority,
or even a sizeable minority, of the seats on the board. That's my
motivation for making this suggestion. Having no more than one board
member from the same org doesn't mean that the board is balanced, as
Christoph and Simon rightly point out. But having several members of the
same third party serving on the board is a clear sign that it is not. As
such, I feel this would be a minimum standard for organizational
diversity on the board that most members of our community should be able
to agree with, which may not be the case for more far-reaching restrictions.

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list