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

Wed Jan 30 23:07:20 UTC 2019

Hello

I have no conflict of interest. Please see our board statements.

Heather

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, 23:36 Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com wrote:

> Hi Manfred
>
> I think some of these questions have been answered in other emails on this
> thread, but I'll try to answer quickly, as myself.
>
> > Why is the board sitting on this report for a month on such an important
> issue?
>
> We didn't. We received the report in the middle of the holidays, a
> previously decided black out period for Board business (which the MWG could
> have been aware of from our December meeting minutes). We came back online
> January 7. We held our Board meeting the following week, January 17. All
> the while we were discussing and trying to connect with GL. On January 25,
> we were scrambling to act before the deadline imposed by the MWG. Fairly
> fast acting as far as the Board goes, and there was no particular external
> event that we had to act against.
>
> > Why wasn't the report published by the board itself?
>
> Because the MWG imposed a deadline. We were about to publish.
>
> I personally think it's bad governance to have a WGs setting OSMF
> timelines without coordination with the Board.
>
> > Especially tricky: What role do Heather, Kate, Martijn, and Mikel, who
> supported the accession of the 100 members to the Foundation, play in the
> delay of the publication? (
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-12-20#2018.2FRes12_Preliminarily_reject_and_individually_inspect_all_membership_applications_from_India_from_15.11.2018
> )
>
> I supported not rejecting their applications in November, because at the
> time we were only asked to decide on the possibility these were "fake
> accounts" not connected to actual people.
>
> > What are Heather, Kate, Martijn and Mikel's interests?  Who should be
> protected, the independence of the board or any friendships or even company
> interests?
>
> Myself and my employer have no business relationships or interest in
> Global Logic.
>
> > GL wanted to manipulate the elections. The report shows that this is a
> fact. Are there any masterminds who tried to force their candidates (who
> exactly?) through GL? These candidates would definitely have to be excluded
> from further candidacies.
>
> I'm not sure we can quite say that it is a "fact" but there is a strong
> suspicion at this point.
>
> I'm not aware of any masterminds.
>
> > Who are the two candidates who did not sign the letter calling for a
> statement and a full investigation of the incident and also suing for the
> introduction of rules to prevent electoral fraud? What exactly did the
> letter say? Why did the two candidates not sign?
>
> They'd have to speak for themselves. But if I recall correctly, the letter
> mainly raised the possibility of the accounts not being human beings.
>
> I personally was also concerned to see such an issue raised by someone who
> was both a Board candidate and someone reviewing membership sign ups.
>
> > Since it was undoubtedly intended to be a manipulation of the OSMF, may
> the 100 candidates remain members or will they be excluded?
>
> We are looking to hear more from Global Logic and OSMF members before
> deciding on next steps.
>
> > Is it still acceptable that the board members who voted against the
> rejection of the membership applications or perhaps even tried to delay the
> publication so that grass grows over the matter, still remain board
> members? Wouldn't they have to resign if they had decency?
>
> Yes it's fine that we remain board members, and we have decency. No one
> tried to delay anything.
>
> > How do we change the AoA to make such or similar manipulation attempts
> much more difficult in the future?
>
> Personally I think we need to fundamentally examine our governance
> structure. We've outgrown our naive Foundation structure from 2008.
>
> > How do we get as many different OSMF members (active mappers) as
> possible to ensure the OSMF's independence?
>
> Good question. I'm not sure an increase in individual members and a strong
> OSMF are directly correlated. Even to start, I'd like to see ways that the
> existing OSMF members are more engaged. We had far from universal
> participation in the election, and on a regular basis, very few members
> participate here on this list or in working groups. I think we need to
> consider how we develop our community and governance in a way so that
> members see actual value in OSMF.
>
> -Mikel
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019, 4:45:44 PM EST, manfred <
> ma.reiter at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear board, dear all,
>
> Preliminary remark: My mother tongue is German. In this language I can
> express myself sufficiently differentiated, which is not possible in the
> English language. Therefore I enclose a translation of deepl.com.
>
> In the event of a dispute, the German original shall apply.
> On 30.01.19 10:51, Heather Leson wrote:
>
> Dear Membership
>
> 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.
>
> We are now looking to hear clarification from GlobalLogic to the membership,
> for their views on this report. We will be considering our next steps
> following that.
>
> [...]
>
> Zunächst einmal: - ganz großen DANK an die Mitglieder der MWG für diese
> glänzende Analyse in offensichtlich mühevoller Kleinarbeit -
>
> Es folgen meine Fragen, die ich schon gestern im deutschen Forum gepostet
> hatte, wobei das deutsche Forum sicher nicht der richtige Platz für meine
> Fragen ist.
>
>    1. Warum sitzt das Board bei einer so wichtigen Angelegenheit einen
>    Monat lang auf diesem Bericht?
>    2. Warum wurde der Bericht nicht vom Board selbst veröffentlicht?
>    3. Besonders heikel: Welche Rolle spielen Heather, Kate, Martijn und
>    Mikel, die den Beitritt der 100 Mitglieder zur Foundation gestützt hatten,
>    bei der Verzögerung der Veröffentlichung? (
>    https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-12-20#2018.2FRes12_Preliminarily_reject_and_individually_inspect_all_membership_applications_from_India_from_15.11.2018
>    )
>    4. Welche Interessen haben Heather, Kate, Martijn und Mikel?  Wen gilt
>    es zu schützen, die Unabhängigkeit des Boards oder irgendwelche
>    Freundschaften oder gar Unternehmensinteressen?
>    5. GL wollte die Wahlen manipulieren. Der Bericht zeigt: das ist Fakt.
>    Gibt es Drahtzieher, die über GL versucht haben ihre Kandidaten (wen
>    genau?) durchzudrücken? Diese Kandidaten müssten von einer weiteren
>    Kandidatur definitiv ausgeschlossen werden.
>    6. Wer sind die beiden Kandidaten, die das Schreiben, das eine
>    Stellungnahme und eine umfängliche Untersuchung des Vorfalles forderte und
>    darüber hinaus die Einführung von Regeln zur Vermeidung von Wahlbetrug
>    einklagte, nicht unterschrieben haben. Was genau stand in dem Brief? Warum
>    haben die beiden Kandidaten nicht unterschrieben?
>    7. Da es zweifelsfrei eine Manipulation der OSMF werden sollte, dürfen
>    die 100 Beigetretenen weiterhin Mitglied bleiben, oder werden sie
>    ausgeschlossen?
>    8. Ist es noch tragbar, dass die Boardmitglieder die gegen die
>    Ablehnung der Mitgliedsanträge gestimmt haben oder eventuell sogar
>    versuchten die Veröffentlichung zu verzögern, damit Gras über die Sache
>    wächst, noch Boardmitglieder bleiben? Müssten sie nicht - wenn sie Anstand
>    haben - zurücktreten?
>    9. Wie verändern wir die AoA, damit solche oder ähnliche
>    Manipulationsversuche in Zukunft viel schwieriger werden?
>    10. Wie bekommen wir möglichst viele verschiedene OSMF Mitglieder
>    (aktive Mapper), damit die Unabhängigkeit der OSMF gesichert ist?
>
>
> ### Translation ###
>
> First of all: - very big THANK YOU to the members of the MWG for this
> brilliant analysis in obviously painstaking detail -
>
> Here are my questions, which I already posted yesterday in the German
> forum, whereby the German forum is certainly not the right place for my
> questions.
>
>    1. Why is the board sitting on this report for a month on such an
>    important issue?
>    2. Why wasn't the report published by the board itself?
>    3. Especially tricky: What role do Heather, Kate, Martijn, and Mikel,
>    who supported the accession of the 100 members to the Foundation, play in
>    the delay of the publication? (
>    https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-12-20#2018.2FRes12_Preliminarily_reject_and_individually_inspect_all_membership_applications_from_India_from_15.11.2018
>    )
>    4. What are Heather, Kate, Martijn and Mikel's interests?  Who should
>    be protected, the independence of the board or any friendships or even
>    company interests?
>    5. GL wanted to manipulate the elections. The report shows that this
>    is a fact. Are there any masterminds who tried to force their candidates
>    (who exactly?) through GL? These candidates would definitely have to be
>    excluded from further candidacies.
>    6. Who are the two candidates who did not sign the letter calling for
>    a statement and a full investigation of the incident and also suing for the
>    introduction of rules to prevent electoral fraud? What exactly did the
>    letter say? Why did the two candidates not sign?
>    7. Since it was undoubtedly intended to be a manipulation of the OSMF,
>    may the 100 candidates remain members or will they be excluded?
>    8. Is it still acceptable that the board members who voted against the
>    rejection of the membership applications or perhaps even tried to delay the
>    publication so that grass grows over the matter, still remain board
>    members? Wouldn't they have to resign if they had decency?
>    9. How do we change the AoA to make such or similar manipulation
>    attempts much more difficult in the future?
>    10. How do we get as many different OSMF members (active mappers) as
>    possible to ensure the OSMF's independence?
>
> Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
>
> ####
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Best regards
>
>
> ## Manfred
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190131/b16bb317/attachment.html>