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

[Allan Mustard]

Jean-Marc,

I don't see what's controversial about asking for the ability to enlist
volunteer assistance in carrying out the functions the Board already
carries out.  It's not like the Board is proposing to take on new
functions.  Specific functions are not listed in the AoA amendment
because the AoA itself is unspecific on Board functions.  In that
regard, if the Board wanted to expand the scope of its functions, it
could legally do so even without this amendment.  It has not, and I
predict it will not, simply because the Board is made up of community
members who believe the substantive work of the community and project
properly is the remit of the Working Groups, not with the Board.  As
long as mappers form a majority of the Board membership, that attitude
will prevail.

As for your statement, "both of you plead that the Board won't extend
the committees' scope beyond those lines but we have to trust the Board
on that," as I said, the Board isn't looking for additional work.  The
Board is looking for a community-approved mechanism for getting help
from the community to carry out the Board's housekeeping tasks.  If you
distrust the Board so much that you cannot abide by that, I cannot help
you.  I think the Board shows good faith in the discharge of its
responsibilities to the community and the project.

cheers,
apm

On 12/5/2020 4:56 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote:
> On 12/5/20 1:42 PM, Mikel Maron wrote:
>> Jochen, you make good points about clarity on overall structure, and
>> I agree with you about how working groups are situated in osmf. I’m
>> just going to speak very specifically to “why committees” and why the
>> change. There are a few specific things which are and will remain
>> board responsibilities. Compiling and preparing overall budget.
>> Fundraising. Looking after personnel. This is currently individual
>> responsibility (treasurer and secretary). We want to formally spread
>> the load. And if there’s someone outside the board that can provide
>> expertise and effort, we want to be able to work with them. That’s
>> the entire purpose of the AoA change in my opinion. They’ll remain
>> small groups, and won’t operate in the same way as working groups.
>> They report back to board directly, don’t have expanding membership.
>
> You imply that the committees domain would be restricted to HR
> administration, budget administration and fundraising. But the
> resolution does not mention such scope restriction.
>
> To Allan I said "Your clarification express pragmatism and prudence,
> but unless a Board-endorsed policy draws a line between Openstreetmap
> Foundation Board business and the Working Groups, fears of Board scope
> creep will fester." to which he replied "That should not be difficult.
> The Board is not looking for more work. More work would interfere with
> mapping" (https://twitter.com/allan_mustard/status/1334581812903997453).
>
> So, both of you plead that the Board won't extend the committees'
> scope beyond those lines but we have to trust the Board on that.
>
> Even if one accepts the controversial position that considers HR
> administration, budget administration and fundraising and special
> cases unfit for working groups, scope creep is a risk - it may be
> theoretical but it is not mitigated in any way by the resolution as is.
>