[Osmf-talk] Election procedure (was: Re: Elections 2018)
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Sun Dec 16 11:50:52 UTC 2018
On Saturday 15 December 2018, Peter Barth wrote:
> I personally liked two things most: First, the increased amount of
> time for reading and evaluating the manifestors and answers which
> helped to form a better opinion about the candidates and if they are
> inline with my views. The second aspect is the simulaneous
> publication of answers as you know that it's the candidates' views
> you read and not something they copy from other candidates. This gave
> a more genuine feedback of views.
> I also had the impression that the new election mode was well
> received by the German community, at least from those I had a chat
> What are your opinions?
My overall impression was positive for similar reasons as the ones you
I was somewhat 'underwhelmed' by the amount of discussion taking place
during the allocated discussion period. It takes people a longer time
to take notice of stuff like the answers to the questions and to study
them until a broader discourse starts taking place. Ultimately most of
the discussion that happened took place after the elections had already
started (which was obviously not intended).
I am also not sure if the condensation of the question Michael performed
was really necessary. The indirect questioning format itself seems to
have lead to the original questions already being made with more
consideration than in previous years. I would probably have preferred
it if the question preprocessing would have just grouped the questions,
and written a summary but have kept the original questions for
reference and leave it to the candidates in how much detail they want
to answer (which they did anyway).
This matter ultimately prooved to be somewhat less problematic this year
because we did not see the same amount of avoiding and sidestepping the
questions we had last year (either due to the different format or due
to different candidates).
I think for the future it might be worth considering if we can extend
the candidate questioning to a truly multilingual format. This could
definitely help to encourage a much broader range of community members
in taking interest in the OSMF.
What i am disappointed about is that the board made and published their
decicion about the DWG appeal in the middle of the election process.
Independent of the decision itself this was a really poor choice in
timing and IMO very disrespectful of the candidates and the election
process. This is particularly remarkable because it was the board
which introduced the changed pre-election procedure and then the same
board decided to disrupt this procedure - not to mention the fact that
the new board will have to deal with the whole aftermath of it - with
the need to either defend and justify the decision of the previous
board or to once more revise it.
More information about the osmf-talk