[Osmf-talk] New idea: Invite a LC to speak at each OSMF Board meeting
allan at mustard.net
Fri Apr 10 00:24:01 UTC 2020
For the record, I am in favor of increased communication between the
OSMF Board and the various stakeholders in the OSM community, including
members of the Advisory Board. If anybody opposes increased
communication for any reason, I am all ears to hear your rationale.
If anybody is opposed to my outreach (40+ conference calls to date,
since election to the Board), for any reason, I am all ears.
Please let me hear from you, if you have something to say.
Chairperson, OSM Foundation Board of Directors
On 4/9/2020 8:09 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Thursday 09 April 2020, Steve Doerr wrote:
>> Not from my side, no. If anything, the point of my question was to
>> find out whether the Advisory Board actually functions as envisaged
>> at all.
> That question can hardly be answered objectively because the Advisory
> Board never had a well defined purpose.
> My personal impression is that the AB definitely does not function as a
> place for the local chapters providing advise to the OSMF board. What
> i also can say is that the AB overall does not function as an advisory
> body that provides advise more valuable than the sum of its parts by
> developing this advise in deliberation and arguments among its members
> (this is how i would generically defined the function of an advisory
> body - but that is just my personal definition of course). But i can't
> and don't want to rule out that the AB as is fulfills other important
> functions that i am not aware of.
> A huge part of the problem probably is that having local chapter
> representatives on the AB was mainly an afterthought for having them in
> the role of chaperons, i.e. having independent people present in a
> venue that would otherwise be very prone to corporate representatives
> using it to lobby for their interests in an organized and intransparent
> fashion. Don't get me wrong - this role is vital, i would be very
> uncomfortable with something like the AB without having such. But it
> also kind of precludes it growing to become more useful.
> The AB is also a good point to answer Allan's question about possible
> harm of the proposed idea (apart from the already discussed points,
> especially the additional emphasis to the English language bias in the
> OSMF) - for years the AB has from my perspective kind of served as an
> alibi for involvement of the local chapters in the OSMF - something
> people could point to when the discussion came to the matter in a way
> of "here look, the LCs are already involved prominently in the OSMF".
> It is possible that in the future this speaking slot at the board
> meetings in a similar fashion could serve as a token defusing the call
> for a more substantial involvement in actual decision making and checks
> and balances within the OSMF.
> But it does not have to - ideas like this are definitely never bad per
> se. But neither are they good per se. I pointed out a number of
> potential issues i see. None of them means the whole idea could not be
> implemented in a beneficial way as long as you do it in awareness and
> respect of these points. Dismissing potential issues out of the belief
> things will work out fine because you happen to like the idea however
> (as it seems to shine through in some of the comments here) does not
> seem a good strategy to me.
> An additional concrete suggestion for the sketched idea: Instead of the
> random selection of the LC to speak (which is odd in its arbitrariness
> and as mentioned bears the problem that an unfortunate LC might not be
> able to speak for a really long time) do a systematic rotation: Order
> the LCs according to their number of members starting from the smallest
> and after coming to the largest start again with the smallest. This
> would IMO be more fair, predictable and balanced than random selection.
> Christoph Hormann
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk