[Osmf-talk] voting fraud

[Rihards]

Perceived conflicts of interest can cause more damage than actual
conflicts of interest.

Similarly, perceived participation in voting fraud can cause more damage
than actual participation. I'll list facts and suspicions that have been
voiced on various channels in the hope that all former and existing
board members and candidates will publicly denounce the GlobalLogic
actions and strongly deny any possible connection or prior knowledge of
the fraudulent activities.

The suspicions listed below are not mine - all of the information is
already floating around in various discussion channels/forums. Not
dispersing those suspicions causes harm for the potentially involved
individuals and OSM community in general.

Please do not cherrypick individual items - I'll stress again that it
does not matter what one might think of each of the individual items.
These suspicions and accusations do damage all together.

* GlobalLogic (GL) employees have clashed with individual mappers, DWG
and other OSM entities regarding their map changes (when Grab-contracted
or otherwise).
* GL employees have worked with HOT and have similarly relaxed attitude
towards the quality of map data.
* Organised editing policy has been disliked by corporate-related
mappers and board members.
* Organised editing policy was affected by the board's take on it.
* Several board members and candidates are HOT related.

There are dangerous suspicions[1] that a growing number of community
members are expressing:

* GL is unlikely to waste 1500+ GBP (2000 USD; just the membership fees)
without certain confidence that this expense will pay back.
* It is unlikely that none of the board members or candidates had not
the slightest clue this was happening.
* It is likely that some had a role in organising this.
* Various dismissals (contrasting GL employee influx with population of
India) and delays regarding the MWG report make all the suspicions more
valid.

Is there a way out?
It might be same as with the child-molesting priests. Lack of strong
denouncement shifts the public perception against the accused.

[1] They are more dangerous if they are incorrect.
-- 
 Rihards