[Osmf-talk] voting fraud

Heather Leson heatherleson at gmail.com
Fri Feb 1 12:03:25 UTC 2019


Dear colleagues,

A few things on all the multiple chains of emails:

Christoph, you are prolific in your writing.   I appreciate your right to
post.

"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".

- To be active on this mailing list is often a full time job. I saw a
question about Board conflict of interest and answered it. (While traveling
in an airport for work). Honestly, I do not know what more you want from a
board member. A pint of blood?  I provided full disclosure on my
associations when I joined the board, when I ran for the board and when we
were asked to update. Clearly, this is not enough. Let me be more clear (on
my lunch break from a job that pays my bills) - I have not and do not work
for Global Logic. I have not and do not intend to work for them in the near
future. I have no business relationship with them. This is really the first
ever interaction I have had. GL has not tried to talk to me or influence me
in any way. There is no conflict of interest on my part. thus - I have no
conflict of interest.

Now, secondly, the notes questioning board and previous candidates is super
interesting to me. People are volunteering their time (away from studying,
book reading or having a real cup of coffee with someone.) I think that the
fact that there are questions about conflict and integrity is sad. I would
never ever question your integrity or that of the MWG. Some of the notes
put that into question. Why do we have a culture that makes people not want
to participate in governance, working groups,  and /or on mailing lists? -
this is why.

Lastly, I said it before - people work, they have jobs, and they contribute
to OSM. I think the saddest part of this whole discussion is the lack of
appreciate that we are talking about 100 human beings and company. 100
human beings. It seems to me this is getting lost in the notes.

Thank you and back to work

Heather

Heather
Heather Leson
heatherleson at gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com


On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:45 PM Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
wrote:

> 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
> following:
> 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
> actions.
>
> 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.
>
> --
> 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/20190201/c094ae92/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list