[Osmf-talk] voting fraud
mapanauta at gmail.com
Mon Feb 11 02:19:52 UTC 2019
Sorry for joining so late to the conversation, it took me a while to catch
up. I was one of the candidates who decided not to sign the letter. At that
time it felt like there was not enough evidence to support the letter. I
read the report and I admire the detailed work the working group did to
show numbers and statistics to understand the situation. I believe there
are two ways we could follow up after all these findings. One way will be
looking to the past and one way will be looking to the future, my
suggestion will be that both ways need to work in parallel.
Regarding the past to establish formal communication with the GL manager
who was in contact about the memberships asking specific questions (there
is enough material for questions with all the comments from the community
and their concerns about the GL memberships).
Concerning the future, if the membership structure is from 2008 we already
learned from situations like this, what are the weaknesses of the
membership process and what needs to be improved, a new initiative should
be discussed about Corporate and massive sign ups. This new initiative
should not wait until November 2019 and should be the new focus of the MWG.
And just to finalize, I don't remember the percentage of the people who are
OSMF members but didn't vote, it will be interesting to understand why this
people didn't vote and how we can motivate them to vote in the 2019
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:46 PM Rihards <richlv at nakts.net> wrote:
> On 06.02.19 19:35, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> > Hi Nuno,
> > What struck me the most about your message was you kept putting
> > quotation marks around the word "human", which, at least where I'm from,
> > is used to indicate that the the subject is not actually human. I gather
> > now that was not your intent, but to be honest I am still unclear on
> > what you meant to say.
> I'll jump in for Nuno - please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.
> The quotation marks were intended to signify these being sockpuppet
> Sarcasm and similar forms of communication sometimes do not translate
> well in electronic media, an especially across different cultural
> groups. It might be safer to drop it for sensitive topics, along with
> open-ended suggestive questions.
> Back to the main topic, there are senior GL employees that have worked
> with people who have participated in this thread. Who are friends with
> candidates to the board. Anybody can see this in various social media.
> It might be worth having a quick chat with former colleagues and current
>  Why yes, an open-ended suggestion.
> > -Kathleen
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 2:54 AM Rihards <richlv at nakts.net
> > <mailto:richlv at nakts.net>> wrote:
> > On 06.02.19 00:42, Kathleen Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > As far as I recall, nobody has suggested the 100+ individuals
> > have or
> > > had sinister reasons. If somebody is claiming that, let's
> > discuss it
> > > separately.
> > > If nobody is claiming that, putting it forward is derailing the
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > Hi Rihards,
> > > Perhaps you missed it, since this thread has gotten quite lengthy,
> > > in my first message I replied directly to Nuno, who 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
> > > 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
> > > of the members."
> > >
> > > Perhaps he was being sarcastic, as Guillaume suggested, or there
> is a
> > > language barrier issue here, but I read it very much as casting
> > > aspersions on the motivations of the individual employees, and
> > > why I replied.
> > Nuno has confirmed that he was being sarcastic, which was also how I
> > read that message right away.
> > On top of that, I interpreted their message as expressing doubt that
> > single member of that cohort was joining OSMF on their own free will.
> > Years ago in this region there was a problem when stolen passports
> > used to register companies, take loans etc.
> > If a stolen (coerced through the company) identity is used as a
> > for OSMF, are the individual behind the identity any less of an
> > individual, or having sinister reasons? Surely not, and that should
> > detract from the main topic - the identity thief.
> > > -Kathleen
> > --
> > Rihards
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk