[Osmf-talk] Board statement - Membership Working Group report on unusual signups before OSMF election
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Wed Jan 30 12:00:11 UTC 2019
On Wednesday 30 January 2019, Heather Leson wrote:
> The board would like to thank the Membership Working Group for their
> thorough and insightful investigation of these registrations. We
> received the report at the end of December, when several board
> members were away and we had a black-out period on circular
> resolutions. In the January 17th board meeting we discussed this
> in the closed portion of the meeting. We organized a call with
> GlobalLogic to discuss the registration without disclosing the
> report. After this, we agreed that the Board should release the
> report to the membership, with advance release to GlobalLogic. We
> did not have sufficient time to do this in advance of the MWG
> publishing the report. The Board would like to improve its
> responsiveness in the future.
There are a number of inconsistencies with recent board statements i
would like to seek clarification on:
* You write "After this, we agreed that the Board should release the
report to the membership, with advance release to GlobalLogic" - yet
the minutes say the circular on "Share the report on GlobalLogic with
them before it is released to members" did *not* pass. Was information
from the report shared with representatives of GlobalLogic before the
publication by the MWG?
* The January board meeting minutes say that "The board has sent emails
to the company *before* the holidays" (emphasis mine). Were you aware
at that time the MWG was in the process of investigation the matter?
When exactly did this communication happen? What was the content of
that communication? Was any information that was not publicly
available at that time shared with GlobalLogic that could have
influenced the reaction of GlobalLogic to MWG inquiries?
* The board has also approved a circular saying "The MWG suggested the
Board release or endorse the GlobalLogic report rather than it coming
from just the MWG" Is your statement of receipt meant to serve as
such? My understanding of the term "endorsement" is at odds with that.
If this is the collective understanding of the board of that circular
and the concept of endorsement i would like to suggest to the board to
in the future be more precise and if necessary elaborate in formulating
their decisions and not rely on terms that are evidently understood
very differently by different parts of the OSM community.
Unrelated to that i would like to know if the board is considering
termination of those memberships according to article 17.4 of the AoA?
More information about the osmf-talk