[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

Christoph Hormann chris_hormann at gmx.de
Sat Dec 15 12:07:10 UTC 2018

On Saturday 15 December 2018, Steve Doerr wrote:
> I don't like that at all. It would mean that, as soon as one member
> of a particular organization is elected to the board, all the other
> members of that organization are effectively disqualified from
> standing in the following election and probably the one after that as
> well. That seems to me fundamentally anti-democratic.

Please note as clearly said and demonstrated many times by several 
people here the OSMF members currently do not even remotely form a 
democratic representation of the OSM community overall.  So it would be 
very much 'sticking the head into the sand' to look just at the inner 
structure of the OSMF when assessing the democratic legitimacy.

That being said most democratic systems have rules for disqualifying 
people for being elected to representing and governing bodies.  Many 
also have quota systems for balanced representation - quotas for women 
are probably the most common but quotas for cultural and ethnic groups 
are likewise fairly widespread.  Fixed regional quotas are a central 
characteristic of many federated democratic systems.

As said i - as well as others in this thread - would prefer a more 
radical disqualification of business interests and organizational 
interests with OSM connections in the OSMF board.  But characterizing 
the suggestion from Tobias as anti-democratic does not hold up from a 
global perspective.

Christoph Hormann

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list