[Osmf-talk] Voting "recommendations" by employers (straw poll)
mikel.maron at gmail.com
Sun Nov 11 11:04:52 UTC 2018
I'm not opposed, but don't particularly see the need. There are many unsavory scenarios we can imagine and develop ideas about, but fair enough, good to be prepared. And, if in this case it means more attention on welcome.openstreetmap.org, that's a good thing in itself.
These are my tweaks to the wording. Since OSMF governance is built on individuals, let's just say that. And it's important we don't squash legitimate activities, like discussion.
"If you are an employer and you want to encourage your OSM-involved staff to become members of the OpenStreetMap Foundation, that's a great idea and we welcome it. They can [sign up here](https://join.osmfoundation.org/).
Please remember becoming a member and exercising membership rights is the sole decision of an individual. As the Foundation decision making is oriented on individual members, we ask your management to refrain from suggesting that employees take specific actions, like instructing them to vote for certain candidates in an election. Of course, internal discussion of candidates and issues among employees who are Foundation members is acceptable."
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Sunday, November 11, 2018, 1:23:13 AM GMT, Allan Mustard <allan at mustard.net> wrote:
I agree with Frederik, speaking as an employee (and manager) of a large organization known as the U.S. government :-) I think it needs to be written down to avoid abuse in the future or at minimum to give OSMF grounds to take future action if needed. As the saying goes, "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
IMHO "grassroots project" is ok but "crowdsourced project" might be better. I could live with either.
On 11/10/2018 10:37 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
the overwhelming majority of OSMFers participating in this discussion
would prefer employers to refrain from suggesting what their employees
should vote for.
I'm happy about this outcome; I was honestly a little worried that
perhaps my opinion was a minority opinion and we'd find lots of people
saying things like "hey, big companies know best what's good for OSM so
they should have a say" or so ;)
We cannot rely on companies and organisations somehow magically doing it
right; we must write it down. I reckon it could perhaps go onto the
welcome.openstreetmap.org site somewhere, which is mainly aimed at that
group. I'll make a pull request there if we can agree on a good wording.
I was thinking maybe:
"If you are an employer and you want to encourage your OSM-involved
staff to become members of the OpenStreetMap Foundation, that's a great
idea and we welcome it. However, as a grassroots project we ask you to
respect our decision making processes and refrain from suggesting to
your employees any particular use of their participatory power, like
recommending a vote for certain candidates in an election. Becoming a
member and exercising their membership rights must be the sole decision
of the individual."
Would that be something that everyone could get behind? Or is the
"grassroots project" term maybe too much of a political one and should
be replaced with "a project conceived and run by individual volunteers"
We could add "Please also refrain from offering incentives, like a
reimbursement of the membership fee, for employees who join the OSMF.";
the majority of people didn't think this was a good idea, though that
majority is not as overwhelming as the "voting recommendations" one.
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk