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

Guillaume Rischard openstreetmap at stereo.lu
Wed Jan 30 21:43:32 UTC 2019

Hi Christoph,

Maybe I can shed some light on the timeline.

Steve and I sent this to the board on 26 December after working on it more or less nonstop since late November.

MWG, like other working groups, can investigate issues and release reports on its own authority, but we postponed a few times at the board's request to let them deliberate, perhaps contact GlobalLogic to hear their version, and consider releasing/endorsing it themselves.

On our MWG meeting on 14 Jan, we set a firm deadline for 26 Jan - one month from release to the board - and immediately informed the board; we again told the board it could release the report itself, and that we would prefer this, but we were clear on the date we would release to the members.

Shortly after 2200 UTC on 25 Jan, we were asked by the board if we could delay again until the 29th to give them time to prepare a statement. We understood they had already had a phone call with GlobalLogic days before, but we don't know the details. It's not clear to us if the board had already decided to send the report to GlobalLogic, or had already sent it to them - this was not discussed or agreed with MWG.

We had informed the board of the release date in due time, had already postponed the release at the board’s request, were bound by the MWG’s decision and felt that the membership should receive this information. Therefore, we did not agree to further delay.

We shared our pre-written email statement with the board, and offered to wait an hour to let them add a paragraph. They agreed, but we never heard from them again.

After waiting for two hours, we released the report to the membership at 0100 UTC.

The first official statement we saw from the board was the one from today.


> On 30 Jan 2019, at 18:04, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 January 2019, Steve Friedl wrote:
>> The membership working group said often that we preferred the board
>> to endorse and release this report itself rather than have it come
>> from a working group, but we did not wish for undue delay.
>> MWG had aggressive timelines for release, we believe transparency
>> required this, and it's likely the board felt more time pressure than
>> they were comfortable with, especially considering the extended
>> holiday break and with other things on their hotplate.
>> I would be surprised if there were anything approaching agreement on
>> what constitutes "undue" delay.
> And i applaud the MWGs clear and diligent approach on the matter.  
> Although this AFAIK has never been publicly stated directly so far it 
> is clear from the timing and the board statements that the board was 
> aware that the MWG had the firm intention of releasing their report 
> independent of what the board decides and one month after sending it to 
> the board is a reasonable time frame for that in my eyes - even with 
> the holidays in between.
> The board is obviously free to decide if they endorse the report or just 
> acknowledge it and to not be pressured to deciding this by others.  But 
> deciding to release and/or endorse it from the board but making this 
> contingent on the MWG not releasing it on their own first (this is how 
> i understood Frederik's remark) seems odd when they were aware that the 
> MWG has a firm plan for release.
> -- 
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list