[Osmf-talk] Remarks and question regarding board meeting minutes and circulars

Michael Reichert osm-ml at michreichert.de
Mon Dec 17 20:29:01 UTC 2018


Hi,

for the sake of clarity, you is used in plural only in this email.

Am 17.12.18 um 20:58 schrieb Mikel Maron:
>>  yet it seems all three board members who work for corporate OSMF
>> members participated in the vote despite the obvious conflict of
>> interest.
> Was there discussion of Conflict of Interest on this topic?
> Yes. None of the companies we work for (GeoFabrik, Telenav, and Mapbox) are looking to make use of this facility, so whether it was available or not would have no impact on us. Therefore CoI was not a factor.

Why don't you document such discussions about CoI, e.g. "Three board
members work for corporate members but none of them is looking to make
use of this option."

Not planning to make use of something does not overcome CoI concerns.
From my point of view, a CoI is not about an actual conflict of interest
but also about potential conflicts.

>>  This decision was also revealed by the board to the advisory board  (through Mikel) on November 28 while it was only made public through  the minutes on December 6.
> Why was the Advisory Board notified of the decision before the rest of the Foundation?
> The decision was made by circular. We typically announce circular results publicly in our Board minutes. I shared back the results with the AB, so that companies making budgeting plans for 2019 could know as well. Not everyone tracks the Board meeting minutes so closely.
>>  Such a process is then the opposite of  transparency because it deprives the OSMF members and the OSM community  in general from the opportunity to provide input on and participate in  the decision making process and fulfill their supervising function (see above).
> Did the community have any awareness or chance to comment on this decision?
> The topic was announced in our November Board meeting https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-11-15#Aiding_sponsorship_of_regional_SotMs, though we did not get a chance to discuss.

Well, you had the chance but you decided to postpone it.

> There was little discussion on the AB list, outside of brief remarks of
> support from local chapters and other companies, and one remark
> against from the FOSSGIS local chapter representative.
> It didn't seem like the topic was particularly controversial, so we moved ahead on circular. What we didn't have at that point were details on the process, which led to the 3 votes against. Process is important, but no one was disagreeing with doing this on principle.

Three of seven votes against are a sign that a proposal is somehow
controversial and should get more discussion if it has not been
discussed a lot already.

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20181217/d9d54bc7/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list