[Osmf-talk] Change deadlines and add questionnaire for OSMF board elections

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 09 October 2018, Andy Allan wrote:
> [...] The questions can be voted on by the members, and each
> member is given 10 votes to spread between all the questions based on
> which questions they like best. Then the top 10 most voted on
> questions would be put to the candidates for their response.

That does not seem a good approach to me since it would massively favor 
organized campaigns and candidates backed by a large number of 
claqueurs compared to individual hobby mappers.

What i could well imaging requiring questions to become 'active' to be 
available for review and reformulation suggestions for 1-2 days and 
being reviewed and supported by at least 1-2 additional mappers in 
addition to the person who asks the question.  This would enable a 
minimum level of quality control over the question without creating an 
undue and manipulation prone selection process (which would inevitably 
happen if you'd have a popular vote selection process - eliminating 
question by mere dislike).  I think most questions asked during 
previous elections had a highly valid motivation but not every question 
was formulated in the best way to get meaningful answers.  A mandatory 
four or six eyes review would improve this.  This kind of process could 
be easily be implemented on the wiki (separate page to develop and 
review the question which are then copied to the candidate discussion 
page).

One of my main observation in past question sessions was that many of 
the answers were highly non-satisfactory - candidates weaseling around 
a subject and answering with hollow phrases, reinterpreting questions 
into a completely different direction or just giving a '+1' to an 
answer from a different candidate.  Therefore what i would like to see 
is an easy possibility to give candidates feedback to how well they 
answered the questions, not in terms of if i agree with the answer but 
if the answer gives you an insight on the candidate opinion on the 
subject of the question.

What i also would like to see is a format where candidates discuss their 
views and opinions with each other before the elections.  Such a format 
would provide an opportunity for the members to not only assess the 
opinions of the candidates on specific questions but also how they 
communicate about them and how they engage in a critical discourse with 
others who have different opinions on these matters.  This would also 
be a suitable test how the candidates engage in communication in a 
small group which would not be unlike work on the board they are 
running for.  Such a format might require 1-2 moderators to get the 
discussion going and to ensure it covers a wide range of topics.

For the reasons already given such a discussion would have to be in 
written form and preferably asynchronous to limit the advantage of 
native English speakers.

Another possibility (but not a replacement for normal questioning) would 
be to allow local communities, in particular with non-English 
languages, to collect questions to be answered by the candidates.  This 
could help a lot reducing the language barrier - questions could be 
discussed and asked by the local communities in their native language 
but would then be asked by an English speaking member of the community 
in question (or by someone else who speaks both languages).  
Implementing something like this and giving those questions particular 
attention would demonstrate the OSMF's commitment to a global and 
diverse community.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/