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

[Mikel Maron]

There's definitely a lot to think about here. But let's not lose sight that the scope here is only a small AoA change that allows for potentially more participation in Board business. Budget, fundraising, and personnel management are core responsibilities held by the Board. We're setting up committees in order to formalize spreading the load of these responsibilities (rather than individually on Treasurer and Secretary). We would not want to count out contributions from people not on the Board to help when needed.

-Mikel


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Wednesday, December 2, 2020, 09:33:47 PM EST, Allan Mustard <allan.mustard at osmfoundation.org> wrote: 






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> 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.  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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> 


_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk