[Osmf-talk] Election procedure (was: Re: Elections 2018)

Mon Dec 17 11:28:41 UTC 2018

Hi,

I am in agreement with the opinions shared by Peda and Christoph about
the election process, and the suggested improvements to make it even
more robust:
- Time for reading/evaluating manifestos
- Access to the raw OSMF members questions
- Simultaneous publication of candidates' views
- Time for further discussing with candidates after the publications
of their answers to community questions; more time shall be put up
there
- Ideally, try to be more multi-lingual under ways yet to
discuss/enforce progresses on that ground which has been and is very
challenging

I'll add to the list of possible changes to the election process:
- Share the chairman, WG activities reports and treasurer reports
before or at the beginning of the election process so that they can be
part of the decision of an OSMF member to run for the Board
- Consider sharing along with reports, elements about
strategy/workplan items for the next year

I think it's equally important to re-stress the need for classic osmf
discussions on the osmf mailing-list to continue happening in parallel
to the above manifestos, questions/answers and report/planning
materials sharing process.

Ideally, I think it would be best to avoid releasing important OSMF
decision during the election time, like in most democracies.

Looking back at comments Mikel received for his email stressing
Geoffrey (HOT US Inc voting member and paid staff) and Miriam (voting
member of the same organization) candidatures' quality whilst holding
its multiple affiliations which include HOT US Inc inc, I think it's
also important ensure  freedom of speech (within the limits of the UK
law) from the Board officers throughout the election process so that
they can make all members benefiting from their in-depth knowledge of
the foundation and their full views on discussion items and persons.

In HOT US Inc, this had been the case until the 2015 Board election
and the blame that Severin Menard (by then Board member) received for
having co-authored with me a non-official outlook report of the
organization in 2015 in the absence of such official document. This
report looked back (positively and negatively) at the performances of
the organization by areas of activities and proposed action items to
fix issues or strengthen positive dynamics.
- This had been interpreted as a direct criticism and an accusation of
"poor performance"/"failure" (to quote Dale Kunce) of Kate Chapman
role as Executive Director of the organization, when the report
features limits/weaknesses as well as successes of the organization
(staffs and working group volunteer).
- This was also interpreted as a divide of the unity of the Board.
The detail of that episode read in Severin's diary note "The history
of HOT US Inc governance - not to be replicated in OSMF"  [2]
The consequence of that jurisprudence for HOT US Inc membership is
that they have to form their opinion prior voting only through
candidates manifestos, questions/answers to candidates, and the
organizational information which is public to the voting member (which
is little). Generally they do not have access to a treasurer's report
for their AGM, and activity report is not mandatory. In the case of a
diverse membership, divided on given topics, like in any human
collective, this lead to a situation where the membership will vote on
reference materials informed by the majority views dominating the
heights of the organization. In such schema, critical information or
miss-management can possibly be hidden unless a minority Board member
chose to disclose such information at the risk of being exposed to
disciplinary actions as per the 2015 jurisprudence.

Thinking about OSMF resilience, we may want to make sure that it's as
easy as possible for Board members to contribute to the election
discussions primarily as individual members of the foundation called
to watch the OSMF best interest by sharing their knowledge and views
in a public discussion based on facts to inform the membership vote.

Best,
Nicolas

[1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005688.html
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SeverinGeo/diary/42924

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 1:23 PM Andrew Hain <andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Some governments are expected to avoid decisions before an election:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_(pre-election_period)
>
> --
> Andrew ________________________________
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Sent: 16 December 2018 11:59:35
> To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Election procedure (was: Re: Elections 2018)
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/16/18 12:50, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I have my own thoughts about the Crimea issue and how it was handled,
> but frankly I view this and and the election happening on different
> timelines. I don't think the board should stop working just because an
> election is under way, or refrain from publishing the result of a
> decision because of an election.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

--
Nicolas Chavent
Les Libres Géographes
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