[Osmf-talk] Welcome Mat for Organizations
mikel.maron at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 19:47:22 UTC 2018
Huh. I think there's multiple viewpoints on the Board but as Frederik said, it's never really been discussed in detail. Want to explain the spectrum of opinion here.
> it was certainly never our shared or stated intention to have the advisory board develop or maintain it.
Everyone on the Board of Directors was fully aware of the whole of the Welcome Mat project from inception to each step along the way, and I don't recall anyone ever raising issue with the Advisory Board's involvement or suggested it needed to happen in the CWG. In fact, there was consistent support for the effort.
Really, the reality is that _I_ took facilitation of this project on as a Board action, have been very public and open in all aspects of its development, and am happy with the results.
> The advisory board is likely not the right group to explain to businesses and other organisations what the community wants
I disagree. The people on the Advisory Board are part of the community, and have learned a lot about both what questions and surprises newcomers have to OSM, and what the community expects from its members. The AB were far from the only folks involved in content development. Further, all of the content on the Welcome Mat has been open to feedback and PRs, and have gone through multiple iterations based on that feedback. It is hardly represents a single point of view, but a collective view.
> who on the AB would have commit rights and how would the AB decide?
We haven't discussed maintenance of the Welcome Mat at all. No it shouldn't be the "AB" that maintains this. The AB did help a lot on content. So far for actually working on commits, it's just been myself https://github.com/osmfoundation/welcome-mat/commits/gh-pages but doesn't need to be into the future.
> In terms of accountability and transparency the AB is weaker than the average OSM body; there's a high danger of a dominant person or group in the AB simply deciding what they want and the others wouldn't even notice. As is indeed proven here where some people say that the AB "took the lead on this" and others on the AB weren't aware.
This is a misrepresentation of what happened. I think we're reading way too much into a single phrase I wrote, and that could be better put.
The AB was asked to help with working on content. And not only the AB, but members of the Foundation. If anyone took the lead on this, it was myself taking on this action after the Board Face to Face. Christoph joined in, and his active participation in its development is well noted and appreciated.
Further, I want to fully counter the idea that there is any element of danger in the AB. It has no decision making powers and in fact has been underutilized as a resource for the Foundation. Any activity on the AB is documented as part of the monthly Board of Directors minutes. Having a structured way to consult with Local Chapters and Corporate Members is incredibly valuable, and we should rely on it more.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018, 2:22:32 PM EST, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
On 11/28/18 12:02, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On a more general note it was always my assumption that maintainence of
> this would be turned over to the OSM community once the first version
> is done.
The idea was started on the OSMF board of directors in a face-to-face
meeting long ago; we never discussed who should be maintaining it after
it was published, and it was certainly never our shared or stated
intention to have the advisory board develop or maintain it.
The advisory board is likely not the right group to explain to
businesses and other organisations what the community wants, and doesn't
have the structure to take editorial control of a site like that - who
on the AB would have commit rights and how would the AB decide?
In terms of accountability and transparency the AB is weaker than the
average OSM body; there's a high danger of a dominant person or group in
the AB simply deciding what they want and the others wouldn't even
notice. As is indeed proven here where some people say that the AB "took
the lead on this" and others on the AB weren't aware.
On the other side I don't want to ask the DWG to do stuff they're not
asking for themselves.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk