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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Jan 30 16:09:42 UTC 2019


Providing confidentiality to third parties communicating with the board 
has been board policy* since the 2012 elected board  put
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Rules_of_Order#3._Confidentiality_and_Transparency
in to force. One of the reasons to explicitly state this was because it
seemed to (to my very large surprise at the time) have not been clear,
and we had people running around recommending that information only be
shared with a couple of select individual board members and not with the
whole board. 

Obviously there is potential for conflict between providing people
communicating with the board with confidentiality and providing
transparency to the OSMF members and I don't think that can be magically
made to vanish. One way of dealing with it is making the third party
aware of the conflict and asking them to stop sharing such information,
or asking for their involvement in processes to be secret, but that is
not without issues.

Simon

* naturally, at least in the countries I've done business in, it is
typically also a matter of law.

Am 30.01.2019 um 16:36 schrieb Steve Friedl:
> Frederik wrote:
>> There is currently no requirement for board email communication to be public, and whoever emails the board can have reasonable expectations of confidentiality
> This is how it should be; there has to be a vehicle for people to exchange views in a frank matter without having to couch everything in terms of how it would look in agenda minutes - or a blog post.
>
> Steve - not speaking for MWG
>
> --- 
> Steve Friedl // Software guy + Volunteer mapper // Southern California USA
> steve at unixwiz.net [OSM:SJFriedl] // OpenStreetMap MWG //  Fix ALL the maps!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 7:28 AM
> To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Board statement - Membership Working Group report on unusual signups before OSMF election
>
> Hi,
>
> On 1/30/19 1:00 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> * 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?
> MWG informed the board on 28 November that they were planning to start an investigation. They asked board if we could set up a connection with Global Logic. The board asked Global Logic if we could share the previous communication with MWG. Global Logic then asked if we could schedule a phone call. This ran into the elections and Christmas break, during which no meaningful communication happened, and the phone call was held in January. That's the full extent of communication that happened between MWG telling us of their decision to write a report, and MWG sending us their finished report.
>
>> 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?
> There is currently no requirement for board email communication to be public, and whoever emails the board can have reasonable expectations of confidentiality. I am hence a little uncomfortable with this sounding like an interrogation. You have no *right* to know, I do not *have* to answer. It would be more fitting if you could ask politely instead of firing a volley of snappy questions.
>
> The conversation with Global Logic started when board announced how the membership cut-off for voting eligibility would be handled. They asked some questions about this. A few messages were exchanged (written, on the board side, by Heather, Mikel, and myself) in which we, on the whole, politely welcomed their contribution and suggested that engaging with the OpenStreetMap community on the mailing lists could be a valuable step in avoiding any misunderstandings. I wouldn't say that any "sharing of information" has taken place at all.
>
>> * 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?
> No. This board decision was made redundant by MWG publishing their report without waiting for board to come up with an endorsement.
>
>> 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?
> The only thing I can say with certainty is that there is at least one board member considering that. The matter requires further discussion.
> As always, the board is happy to hear input on this from (a wide range
> of) members. Terminating memberships is a grave step - it can be 100 company employees today, and irreverent osmf-talk contributors tomorrow so it should not be taken lightly.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190130/0eee9885/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list