[Osmf-talk] voting fraud

Steve Friedl steve at unixwiz.net
Sun Feb 3 17:46:50 UTC 2019


*  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. 

 

I don’t believe there’s any question that the vast majority of these 100 members are completely innocent of anything: a few at Global Logic knew what they were doing (attempting to manipulate an election, and lying to the board about it), but the rest were just doing as they were told.

 

Many (most?) did not have the vaguest idea that they were doing anything but signing up for a professional organization related to their work, perhaps even feeling good about supporting OpenStreetMap, unaware of any hidden agenda. I suspect most don’t care about OSMF one way or another, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of OSM mappers in general.

 

But those members are the vehicle by which attempted election manipulation has made itself known, and OSMF cannot use an honorable (but misguided) concern for innocent members to mask a response to a bad corporate actor in our community.

 

*	The GL employees/members are not the bad guys (except for a few in the know)
*	The MWG are not the bad guys.
*	The OSMF board are not the bad guys.
*	Those in GL management who tried to game an election and lie about it are the bad guys.

 

That also might be getting lost in the notes.

 

Steve

 

From: Heather Leson <heatherleson at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, February 1, 2019 4:03 AM
To: Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
Cc: OSMF Talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] voting fraud

 

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 <mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com> 
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson 
Blog: textontechs.com <http://textontechs.com> 

 

 

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 12:45 PM Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20190203/e42b01c3/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list