[Osmf-talk] clarification of the AoA amendment on board committees

[Simon Poole]

As this thread started off as a reply to my comments at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SimonPoole/diary/394975 I too want to 
make some clarifications.

As I expressed in the diary post, I'm all for giving the board more 
flexibility in what kind of groups and persons it can delegate work and 
responsibility to. If it doesn't feel at ease with doing things that 
don't quite fit in the framework of the current AoA and going forward 
wants to "stick to the letter of the law", naturally that should be 
fixed. My point with respect to the AoA change is simply that it doesn't 
do that if that if the intent is to bring the OSMFs structure more in to 
line with the AoA because it leaves the existing working groups out in 
the cold, but more fundamentally I believe the board is barking up the 
wrong tree.

"Board committees", that is strict sub-groups of the board, are often 
created for special purposes, the classical examples being audit and 
remuneration committees (the later responsible for C-level executives 
remuneration), typically for areas of activities that are not part of 
normal business or which for obvious reasons can't be delegated to the 
executives. Though sometimes it might appear so :-), you can't really 
have the CEO determining their own salary in a company with any kind of 
larger ownership. In any case creating such committees is supported by 
the current AoAs and it would be completely possible to create board 
committees that deal with budget, fundraising and personnel.

In a larger organisation such committees would naturally delegate most 
of the actual work to staff and then the committee would present the 
results to the board. Absent large numbers of staff, in the case of the 
OSMF this boils down to volunteers, individuals or groups of them.

Which brings us to the real issue, it seems as if the board is currently 
of the opinion that it can't create working groups (or similar bodies) 
without encroaching on "community rights". This however this is clearly 
at odds with historic reality, matter of fact I'm really challenged to 
come up with a single WG that wasn't created directly by the board or 
action of a board member. Maybe the MWG, but definitely not the bulk of 
the groups.

What is true, is that by the very nature of volunteering there is no 
guarantee that any group of any kind will attract enough dedicated 
volunteers to make it viable, but outside of the marketing aspect 
("board committee" does sound more important), I fail to see  how the 
proposed changes to the AoA will make any positive difference to that. 
If at all, it would seem to work exactly the other way around, as the 
way the change is framed, as I've pointed out in my diary post, calls in 
to doubt all work done in the WGs other the last dozen years.

Wrapping up on a slightly different angle: one of the reasons OSM has 
been adopted so well, far outside of any realistic expectations, over 
the last decade was the predictability with which the OSMF and the 
working groups acted.

As a company and an organisation using OSM data you were able to rely on 
that if something went wrong, may it be a licence issue, be it  be a 
screwed up import or mechanical edit, you could count on not being hung 
from the next tree to please the vigilante mob. Detractors will argue 
that being nice and trying to work through the issues with the offenders 
allows the unscrupulous to take advantage of the movement, but I would 
argue that the damage to our collective ego caused by a steady hand is 
far outweighed by the benefits it brings and the success of OSM is the 
best proof.

As a working group you could count on communications with the board 
being bi-directional, and the delegation of responsibilities being taken 
seriously. While I'm sure in the past the board has felt unease at more 
than one occasion with the actions of the WGs (the unhappiness with the 
DWG is legend), it would have previously been unheard of simply removing 
part of a WGs remit and not even bothering to tell them about it as the 
board did in January with the LWG. The board is not going to get more 
volunteers or to even be able to retain the current ones if it continues 
of that erratic path.

Yes, after 5 years of stagnation, things have piled up on the OSMFs and 
its board plate, and it is good that that pile is being worked through, 
but this shouldn't be at the expense of predictability, communicating in 
advance what the plan is and giving everybody time to adapt. I used to 
say: everybody in OSM can do what they want, except the OSMF board.

SImon

Am 03.12.2020 um 03:30 schrieb Allan Mustard:
>
> I'm not sure that framework fits, if you consider that the "FOSS 
> Policy Committee" has an ongoing remit to determine FOSS policy and 
> promote FOSS usage.  Perhaps we should rename it the "FOSS Working 
> Group" in that case.  To be honest, I had not thought of the committee 
> vs. Working Group structure through that prism.
>
> Rather, I have lumped the existing Working Groups and various extant 
> committees/special committees consisting mainly of non-board members 
> (and invariably chaired by someone other than a Board member) into the 
> category of *OSM* work (data quality control, communications, 
> membership, etc.) while the proposed "Board committees" would deal 
> with *OSMF* work:  budgeting, raising funds, and personnel 
> management/contracting.  As a long-time government manager, I see a 
> sharp demarcation between what is often called "substantive" work (in 
> our case, anything related to the map database, i.e, "OSM community") 
> and "administrative" or "support" work (money and contracts, i.e., 
> "OSMF", because it is the legal entity).  If the AoA amendment passes, 
> I foresee three "Board committees" being formed: budget, fundraising, 
> and personnel.  All existing Working Groups, committees of the 
> community, and "special committees" would remain as they are, 
> nominally part of the Foundation but in reality creatures of the OSM 
> community, as would any future Working Groups and non-board committees.
>
> apm
>
> On 12/2/2020 9:03 PM, Christopher Beddow wrote:
>> I am writing to support this. In the Microgrants Committee this 
>> became very relevant, on many notes. It's important to recognize the 
>> Microgrants Committee could be seen as a sort of working group but 
>> with a very specific project and an end date in theory. It also had a 
>> budget to manage which was provided by the foundation directly. There 
>> were some proposed microgrant projects that were rejected despite 
>> excellent merit due to fitting the activities of a working group and 
>> not the microgrants program (which went on to receive support and be 
>> successful that way as far as I can tell).
>>
>> Allan, would it be accurate to describe OSMF committees as being 
>> focused on rather singular goals, often with a measurable timeline, 
>> perhaps as a sort of managed finite project rather than an open ended 
>> group of experts like a working group?
>>
>> For example, Data Working Group consists of experts set to answer 
>> questions and formulate ongoing policy about data. Meanwhile, a 
>> committee dealing with microgrants is given a fixed budget for one 
>> time use and has a single overall task to complete before pretty much 
>> shutting down, unless renewed for another term. Both groups are 
>> volunteers or appointed from a larger pool of volunteers. One is 
>> focused on sprints and one focused on marathons.
>>
>> I may be wrong so please correct this for the broader community 
>> understanding.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, 18:06 Allan Mustard 
>> <allan.mustard at osmfoundation.org 
>> <mailto:allan.mustard at osmfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Please read my diary post clarifying what the proposed  Articles
>>     of Association amendment is about.  There has been confusion
>>     about it and I apologize for not being utterly, totally clear. 
>>     The diary post is here:
>>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/apm-wa/diary/394981
>>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/apm-wa/diary/394981>. Please
>>     feel free to leave comments there or to reply to this talk message.
>>
>>     The text of the diary post is as follows:
>>
>>>     The OSMF Board is asking the membership to approve an amendment
>>>     to the Articles of Association that will allow Board committees
>>>     (specified in the AoA as only consisting of Board members) to
>>>     include any Foundation member, associate or full, to serve on a
>>>     Board committee. The reason for this is that some of the Board’s
>>>     administrative work, such as handling our finances, has proven
>>>     very time consuming, more than one person can handle. Another
>>>     sphere is the budget preparation, and yet another is
>>>     fundraising. Since the Board is also hiring fulltime staff and
>>>     engaging contractors, it needs help with oversight.
>>>
>>>     Some board members have been asked if this is intended to
>>>     supplant the Working Groups. At least one diary entry has been
>>>     posted by a community member asserting that this is the case,
>>>     and urging Foundation members to vote against the amendment.
>>>
>>>     The proposed AoA amendment is NOT intended to supplant Working
>>>     Groups. The Working Groups handle the substantive and
>>>     administrative issues of the community, which is separate from
>>>     the Foundation and the Board. The Working Groups would therefore
>>>     not be affected. As I envision it, the Board committees would
>>>     deal with personnel, budget, and fundraising, none of which fall
>>>     in the remit of any Working Group.
>>>
>>>     I urge Foundation members to vote in favor of the AoA amendment,
>>>     and then to volunteer to serve on one of the Board committees
>>>     (and on Working Groups, too, but separately!)
>>>
>>     Thank you and happy mapping!
>>     -------
>>     /Allan Mustard, Chairperson/
>>     /Board of Directors/
>>     /OpenStreetMap Foundation/
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     osmf-talk mailing list
>>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>     <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/20201203/c57e20d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201203/c57e20d1/attachment.sig>