[Osmf-talk] Working with Dorothea full-time

[Mikel Maron]

Just yesterday, within the Board,  I raised the issue of transition. When the next Board is in place, how will the relationship between the Board and the position of Dorothea be managed? I recommended three things. 
First we document expectations clearly. Turns out this was already done and I had forgotten. This is a document internal to the Board, but I personally see no reason this shouldn't be a public document (and there may be a public version somewhere I'm not aware of). This document does need some revision, it dates from 2015 and doesn't fully represent how things work in practice. Additionally, I think it should be made slightly more generic, to cover management of any future contractors (not that we have any in plans in place).
Second, assign a continuing point of contact. There is one person on the Board who coordinates assignments with Dorothea, and manages other supervisory duties. This has most recently been Kate. Turns out Joost already volunteered to take this on in the next Board.
Third, I wanted us to ask Dorothea to sketch 2020 plans in a couple pages (and note we have not asked her this yet, apologies to Dorothea that you first hear of this in a public discussion). This is to help set new board expectations, as well as for her to define and keep focus. This could be as simple as a rough breakdown of expected time spent on various tasks, what those tasks are, anything important over the calendar year, and anything in particular she’s excited to get done. To be clear, I’m not suggesting a set of goals that she would be measured against, and if not met would score against her. I'm inclined to discuss whether this would be public or not with Dorothea, though myself I don't see an issue.
One more idea I'll just add here. I think the Board and Dorothea should together consider a new title for this role, that better reflects the scope and value to the Foundation.
-Mikel
p.s. It's a fair criticism of the Board that this is all coming late. I urge Dorothea to help the new Board stay on top of all its obligations and actions better, remind them when things are slipping through the cracks.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

    On Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 08:55:46 AM EST, Peter Barth <osm at won2.de> wrote:  
 
 Hi,

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> [...] it starts with Dorothea with
> whom I have worked together for a good 1.5 years now. She is not a
> random contractor. She has her own rules and ways of doing things, [...]

To be honest, it is not Dorothea I would be worried about, but the
board. I am not so much interessted in an answer to the question "would
you rather quit or work on a task the community disagrees with, if
forced by the board". 

But I'd feel better if the position would be more transparent and
communicated in a clearer way. What are the tasks? what are tasks that will
not be handed on for sure? And so on. Given how this decission was _yet_
_again_ communicated isn't very assuring in this regard ... and I also
experienced situations in my past where I thought "uh, this feels much
like someone has a need for a private assistant"

> [...] the issue with this particular item is that it touches
> the contract/employment situation of a person, and it is always a little
> unclear how much of it should be considered personal information.
> [...]

Leave alone the private bits. There are enough topics that are not touching 
personal information that could have been discussed openly. Dorothea has
a pretty "open life" due to the nature of here work that can be openly
observed by many. Your statements here seem much like a cheap excuse to
some degree.

Btw, the statement we got by you, Frederik, seem to oscillate between a 
board statement and something that seems to be your own opinion. This
makes it hard to judge how much of this is "rfc", "discussion" or 
"statement by the board". Anyway, while I am not super surprised by it, I 
am still a bit disappointed to neither see a comment or statement by Joost 
nor by Tobias :(

> > But i think 
> > the board should understand that this is part of a general problem of a 
> > culture of intransparency and exclusivity prevalent within the 
> > organizational culture creating immense problems when interacting with 
> > the broader OSM community who largely strongly despise this kind of 
> > culture.
> 
> There is a grain of truth in what you say but you are also whipping
> things up far beyond what is reasonable. By suspecting evil machinations
> where there is, at worst, a lack of diligence, and by using words like
> "despise", you are playing to an audience of outrage like so many
> populist politicians. We haven't deserved this.

I guess I am missing all those subtleties in your (Christoph and
Frederik) language, or you're just reading too much between the lines.
Let me phrase parts of Christoph's mail (how I read it :-)) differently: 
Everyone was quick talking about transparency so I guess it's ok to 
remember and reremember everyone about this from time to time. *We* have 
deserved this ;-)

There once was a great statement (a parable so to say) by a great 
community member and board member who I highly respect that I'd like to 
quote or repeat as regards to content: 
You don't want OpenSource so you are able to look out for bugs and security holes. 
You want OpenSource so you would be able to look out for bugs and security holes. 
(not sure if this subjunctive properly translates though :D)

Peda


_______________________________________________
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/20191112/841e8c4b/attachment.html>