[Osmf-talk] Board statement - Membership Working Group report on unusual signups before OSMF election

[Christoph Hormann]

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[1]. In the January 17th board meeting we discussed this
> in the closed portion of the meeting[2]. 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[3]. 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[3]" - 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?

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/