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

Wed Jan 30 23:10:42 UTC 2019

Hello,
My two cents about this. First of all I would like to express huge thanks
to the MWG for the quality, completeness and seriousness of this report.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me proud of all volunteers dedicating
so much time, energy and dedication to OSM.
Concerning the governance, I find the MWG behaviour on this matter very
positive for the community. It has clearly shown that reactivity and
transparency were crucial for an incident like this, and this is what
members like me expect from the Board or WGs.
Given that there is now little doubt about GL intention to manipulate the
elections, I hope the Board will quickly reconsider revoking these
memberships, or at least seeking support for this decision by surveying the
OSMF membership.

Vincent

Le mer. 30 janv. 2019 à 23:36, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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/20190131/39964e82/attachment.html>