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

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 12/5/20 11:58 PM, Allan Mustard wrote:
> 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.
I had not considered that possibility - though the amendment makes it a 
little more practical.
> 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.

A good faith board with mapper ethos is indeed the best guarantee, but 
the hypothetical worst case is what we legislate for.


>
> 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.
>>