[Osmf-talk] voting fraud

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Tue Feb 5 17:46:07 UTC 2019

> I don't know if you've read the report, or if we should have been more
> concise? :)
> While it was lengthy, I did read the entire report, and I appreciate the
detail you put into it.

> 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.
> I agree, there is no evidence re what the individual employees had in
mind, nor was I suggesting that your report claimed to know what the
individual employees had in mind, in case that was not clear.

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.
> I did not detect any sarcasm in Nuno's question ("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*?) and thus did not
take it to be so. This may be a limit of email communications, but I
responded to that question as if it were a straight question. I think it's
quite reasonable for individual employees to have one motivation or
reasoning and for managers to have a different one. One hypothesis that
fits with the suspicions of company motives would be that the managers told
the individual employees one thing, and had other motivations they kept to

> 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).

>From what I could tell from the report, it sounded like only a handful of
employees (maybe the same individual several times?) inquired about this
issue. Frederik has now confirmed on-list that it was one individual
manager who communicated on two occasions.

> 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.
> 2 out of 100+ is not very many. I guess they never subscribed to being
with, since it is no longer automatic. My point was only that the
individual employees are silent perhaps in part because they are not on
this list.

> 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?
> While we can all speculate about the motivations for the manager who
communicated with the board (and with MWG?), the other 100 individuals
haven't said anything. I do not think it is reasonable to take the silence
of those 100 individuals, particularly their lack of questions about
voting, as evidence of their *personal* impure motivations, which is what
Nuno suggested (whether sarcastically or not).

> We don't know what it was, but this wasn't just supporting the foundation
> or personal development.
> I think you are projecting the actions and motivations of a handful of GL
managers who have communicated with the board and MWG onto all GL
employees. Assuming that a GL manager did intend something sinister, that
doesn't mean they didn't simply tell 100 employees 'oh, we're helping
register people for this membership, it will look good on your resume', and
the individual employees said 'oh, ok' and though nothing more about it.
Perhaps the company intended something wrongful, perhaps not. I agree that
the company has not been transparent and that is not helpful. However, as
it's been previously mentioned on this thread, there are 100 individual
employees who as far as we know did nothing other than acquiesce to their
employer signing them up for memberships, quite possibly with no knowledge
of the election at all, and have not tried to mislead the board or asked it
about voting. I urge everyone to not lump suspicions of the manager with
other individuals who work at the same company and to speak of those
individual employees with respect regardless of whether you believe the
company acted with bad faith and whether the memberships should be
cancelled due to bad faith on the part of the payer (the company).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190205/d72e137c/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list