[Osmf-talk] voting fraud

Heather Leson heatherleson at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 11:44:06 UTC 2019


Hello, Hope you are having lunch or breakfast

I personally have heard some members say that they would not post to OSMF
mailing lists. The health of this list (dialogue) is often one-sided. It is
culturally difficult to participate in OSMF governance and mailing lists if
you are: 1. regarding the interactions as somewhat borderline in range from
open questions/amicable to down right accusatory in the approach  2. your
job or anything else about your behaviour is mentioned  3. you are not
holders of the current power structures (meaning willing to spend the time
to digest, respond and deal with the countless notes. )

I mean no disregard for anyone. We all have our styles, but imagine you are
1 of the other 930 people who don't post/share - how would you view the
tone and culture norms. On the road to "transparency", the other principles
of community, collaboration, adaptability, and inclusivity get missed.
Again, there is a certain type of person who can actually spend their lunch
responding to these notes instead of going outside. Add to that the
emotional weight it takes to be 'vulnerable' to the 'sometimes
investigative mode' that OSMF tends lean.

Ask yourself the larger question once you put yourselves in other shoes -
would you post?  In fact, even responding today to suggest that maybe, just
maybe there is an unhealthy culture of fear in the styles /approaches, will
be interesting in responses.  It seems to me that the larger problems of
community engagement get sidetracked by all these topics. Meaning - if you
read these notes, would you engage in OSMF or go back to map making or
working around OSM/OSMF to focus on what you can do?

Resources:
what is an open organization - https://opensource.com/open-organization
https://medium.com/mozilla-open-innovation/reflection-inclusive-organizing-for-open-source-communities-9c44f0b689c1

Time for some air. I hope you go outside too and think about the unintended
consequences of the narratives.

Heather

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


On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:48 AM Guillaume Rischard <openstreetmap at stereo.lu>
wrote:

> Hi Kathleen,
>
> I don't know if you've read the report, or if we should have been more
> concise? :)
>
> There is indeed no claim or evidence that every individual employee had
> bad faith or sinister motives. They might not even all have known what they
> were participating in. This is a matter for the corporate actors (managers,
> et al). It's unnecessary to speculate about what every individual had in
> mind, and I think we should focus on what we do know.
>
> It's easy to imagine employees wanting another line on a CV - why not? -
> but the just-so story doesn't match with the evidence. I'm not sure whether
> Darafei [1] was being sarcastic, but I’m certain Nuno is. We've been over
> the data with a fine comb, looked eagerly for innocent explanations. We
> haven't found even hints in favour of that hypothesis, and a lot against it.
>
> GlobalLogic employees have mentioned voting on [talk-in] (p. 5), and
> repeatedly to the board and privately to MWG (p. 20). They have been silent
> in public, but we've also been told by insiders and informed outsiders that
> they've been told not to talk (p. 17).
>
> You say that the individuals have unsubscribed from osmf-talk, but there
> is no evidence of this either. On 17 Jan, we checked the two cohorts: there
> were 2 GlobalLogic subscribers (who are still subscribed)  and 12 French
> subscribers.
>
> Why would they not tell us this story instead of a made-up one? Why
> repeatedly talk about voting? Why do it just before the cut-off? Why not a
> more visible corporate membership for a third of the price? Why gag
> employees?
>
> We don't know what it was, but this wasn't just supporting the foundation
> or personal development.
>
> Guillaume
>
> [1]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-February/005902.html
>
>
>
> On 4 Feb 2019, at 20:42, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk <
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>
> One question, *not a single* one of these, recently called *100 "humans"
>> expressed concern, doubts or showed any sign of not being able to vote*?
>> 100, not 10, 100 that did not express themselves about not being able to
>> vote. Lets me think that people in India are very shy indeed. Lucky we got
>> 900 members and those "100 humans" were just 1/10 of the members. We must
>> be doing a great job at promotion to get new members with that rush sign up.
>>
> Wait a minute. If any of the individuals *had* shown concern about not
> being able to vote, wouldn't that have been taken as evidence that they had
> been part of a conspiracy to manipulate the election? That the individuals
> didn't express any concern re the election suggests support for Darafei's
> theory: These individuals agreed to sign up for OSMF (with their employer
> facilitating signup and payment) in a manner similar to a job-related
> training or certification.
> (Whether their managers had any more sinister plans or not is a separate
> question, but there's no evidence that the individuals had any intent to do
> anything.)
> Then the issue blew up with an investigation and lots of questions and
> speculation, and now they do not want to say anything for fear of saying
> something "wrong" (whether that is by the listserv's standard or their
> managers' standard) so they stay silent, or have unsubscribed.
> -Kathleen
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190205/9ceac690/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list