[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

nicolas chavent nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
Fri Dec 14 06:28:40 UTC 2018


I'd like to clarify and re-emphasize that my position is based on a
principle (diversity ie making sure that the diversity of OSM world,
is as diversely as possible, present at the OSMF Board) in that
discussion. Because of the continued increased presence of HOT US Inc
members at the OSMF board from 2017, I found it hard, to talk about
diversity in an abstract manner without naming that state of thing.
This situation has been (since 2017), is (in 2018) and is likely to
continue to be (2019 onwards) dissatisfying for those who care about
diversity at the OSMF Board and who minimally stand behind Tobias
manifesto item (no more than one member of an organization at the OSMF
Board) or feel that further mechanisms to ensure diversity have to be
discussed, explored and enforced. Hence why it's hard in my opinion to
discuss the issue without clearly articulating the context in which it
origins and which made the discussion first necessary and now both
necessary and urgent. Now that the context being made explicit and
since it's equally important to also discuss diversity at a general
level and I am thankful to those who expressed their views in this
thread and the one that Frederik started.


On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:01 PM Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2018, Rod Bera wrote:
> > [...]
> > -revocability: if you act otherwise than elected for, or against the
> > community interest there must be a kind of impeachment mechanism
> > which can be triggered by the community or a sufficient proportion of
> > the community;
> This possibility already exists - IIRC an initiative of ten percent of
> the members can initiate a vote to 'impeach' a board member which would
> then be based on simple majority of the OSMF members.  Compared to the
> threshold of changing the AoA this is actually not such a big hurdle.
> It would probably not be a bad idea to make use of this more often.
> Regarding representative democracy - you might classify the OSMF as such
> internally but as said many times the OSMF members currently do not
> even remotely represent the OSM mapper base.  This severely limits the
> legitimacy of the OSMF board as a representation of the OSM community
> to a point where you can essentially say whether to accept decisions of
> the OSMF board is ultimately a free choice of the local OSM
> communities.
> The situations with the working groups is somewhat different since they
> are not practically governed by the board or the OSMF members - their
> legitimization is - like with other more informal structures in the OSM
> community - more drawn from a do-ocratic basis.
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

Nicolas Chavent
Les Libres GĂ©ographes
Projet OpenStreetMap (OSM)
Projet Espace OSM Francophone (EOF)
Projet GeOrchestra
Mobile (FR): +33 (0)6 52 40 78 20
Mobile (Haiti): +509 40 19 46 02
Email: nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
Email: nicolas.chavent at leslibresgeographes.org
Skype: c_nicolas
Twitter: nicolas_chavent

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list