[Osmf-talk] Closed board meeting again

[David Marín Carreño]

Hi.

I think that solving matters in a friendly way with GlobalLogic is not
against setting rules or mechanisms that disallow this from happening
again, and the board should aim to both of them.

But I suppose we should start providing positive ideas about how to avoid
this situation in the future. When should we restrict the voting rights for
new members?

Best regards,
--
David Marín Carreño <davefx at gmail.com>



El lun., 22 abr. 2019 a las 11:12, Christoph Hormann (<chris_hormann at gmx.de>)
escribió:

>
> A closed discussion of the GlobalLogic matter was just added as the only
> agenda item so far for the board meeting on Wednesday.
>
> I find this fairly disturbing - on the one hand since i thought we had
> established that closing parts of the meetings requires specifying a
> reason.  On the other hand because i think it is inappropriate for the
> board to have secrets from the membership regarding dealing with
> membership matters.  And above all of this because of the following.
>
> With the recent comment from Joost:
>
> > What happened was more in breach of
> > the spirit of the law than the law itself. I think this sets a fine
> > example for other companies: we will -not- allow transgressions of
> > the spirit of the project, but we -will- give companies the chance to
> > make mistakes and learn from them. Just like we do with anyone
> > involved in the project.
>
> you now essentially set a precedent that the risk for an attempt at
> hostile takeover of the OSMF is a slap on the wrist and special
> positive attention.  In other words:  short of actually successfully
> infiltrating the OSMF with a hundred voters is there any more positive
> outcome from the whole thing GlobalLogic could have hoped for?  I don't
> think there is a feeling for the need "to put them on trial".  I think
> there is a perception of the need for an effective deterrent against
> future attempts in the same direction.
>
> If there is one thing the OSM community expects from the OSMF board
> until the next board elections (though i am not sure if "expect" is the
> right word here - actual expectations might not be that high) it is
> implementing robust measures against future hostile takeover attempts
> of the OSMF.  And with "robust" i mean something more effective than
> trying to talk them out of it.
>
> And i don't see much progress in that regard so far from the board while
> one third of the year is already over.  I mean you are still in the
> process of secretly negotiating with GL on the matter.  What is there
> still to talk about?  They tried to cheat, they got caught, end of
> story.  Based on the information currently available I get the distinct
> impression that the board is going to sweep this under the rug by
> settling things quietly with GL in a buddy-to-buddy fashion and then
> try to continue business as usual.
>
> If the board is unable to develop and agree on an effective strategy for
> that matter the members - and the OSM community as a whole - need to
> take the initiative to develop mitigation strategies against a
> potential future OSMF under corporate control.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190422/b15a0062/attachment.html>