[Osmf-talk] voting fraud
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Fri Feb 1 11:42:14 UTC 2019
On Thursday 31 January 2019, Rihards wrote:
> Perceived conflicts of interest can cause more damage than actual
> conflicts of interest.
Actually that statement is pretty hairy on two levels:
1) It can easily be interpreted as a suggestion to ignore perceived
conflicts of interest (because that would avoid a lot of damage)
2) Perception is the key to defusing/mitigating conflicts of interest.
Most measures to address conflicts of interest will attempt one of the
a) try to improve perception/awareness for them among people involved.
b) introduce additional people whose task and training is to perceive
conflicts of interest and make others aware of them.
c) preemtively establish overall rules to reduce the number of
non-recognized conflicts of interest by avoiding situations where they
are likely to occur independent of case-by-case perception.
This also means that blanket statements of board members here along the
lines of "i have no conflict of interest" are pretty disturbing because
they mainly illustrate a lack of problem awareness and of awareness of
the limitations of their own perception. Kind of like what we in
German call "Pfeifen im Walde".
And this gets me back to the topic of this thread - the lack of
sovereign and courageous actions on the side of those in a position of
power, which is widely perceived to be a "muddling through", is the main
reason why speculations and rumors abound. When the reasoning behind
decisions made and the reasons why decisions are not made is not
transparently communicated people tend to fill in the blanks with
whatever they come up with as plausible explanation. And even if we
have bits and pieces now being mentioned on this mailing list that
create a somewhat more consistent picture - not everyone follows this,
especially not non-OSMF-members, so this is no replacement for the
board being proactively transparent about their decisions and their
And this now also contrasts sharply with the MWG who present a clear
case supported by solid data and analysis. Everyone can follow why
they came to the conclusions they came to. Granted they have the
advantage of not having to make a decision and carry it through. But
that's ultimately just the different roles of board and working groups.
And simply rejecting suspicions from the community does not help at all
if you do not offer a plausible explanation yourself (that is not
retroactively engineered of course). If the board wants to get ahead
of things a good start with this particular subject would be that
those who voted against 2018/Res12 (rejecting the bulk membership
registrations from Nov 15 within seven days) would explain either that
they think in light of the MWG report their decision was wrong or
explain why they still think it is right in a way that people can
understand and relate to.
More information about the osmf-talk