[Osmf-talk] FOSSGIS position on OSMF hiring staff (WAS: Framework for the foundation's hiring practices)
osm-ml at michreichert.de
Fri Jun 26 19:35:37 UTC 2020
Am 26.06.20 um 20:40 schrieb Mikel Maron:
> The third points about being responsible to the people who work for OSMF, and practically organizing management processes, also are topics to which we are paying particular attention.
> Wanted to check on the meaning of the second points about the role of OSMF members and community in these processes. Not sure if this came through the automated translation process well. What is envisioned by "approval by OSMF members" and "accountable to the OSM community"? >
> Certainly expect that community input will be sought and considered. If "approval" suggest some kind of formal vote, we think it's ultimately the role of the Board is to make decisions of this nature. On "accountable", practically speaking this typically means helping to set work plans and priorities, assessing quality of the work, etc. Considering our responsibility to those that work for OSMF, a fair work environment means someone can not have 10,000 bosses.
"approval by OSMF members" means that the members should approve the
creation of the paid job by vote. The approval should not happen on the
candidates selected by the board or to be selected by the board but on
the task description at the beginning of the hiring process (rather what
the employee should do than the requirements towards applicants).
Questions to be answered by the vote are: Do the members think that the
task needs to be done by the Foundation? Do they think that the task
needs paid staff to get done? It is not the task of the members to
select people for the job.
"accountable to the OSM community" means that they should report
annually to the members about their work. We don't expect a detailed
list what they worked how many hours through the year or a very long and
detailed list but , let's say, one page describing the work they did.
It is meant as some a mechanism for transparency towards the members and
enabling the members to check how the board uses the manpower of the
staff. It's to control the board as it should happen with a membership
interested in operations, not to be the super-boss of the staff.
Personal notes by myself: In the past, all resolutions at AGMs have
passed if they were suggested/endorsed by the board. I think that this
will continue as long as there are good arguments in favour of the task.
Mind that it needs 50% of those casting their vote to make a voting
fail. The potential opponents of the board need to convince them or it
needs to be pretty obvious.
Calling a general meeting to vote on a job description is an overkill.
However, we can do votings at any time without having a formal general
meeting and can – maybe at the next AGM – introduce a mechanism allowing
the board to call such votings between general meetings.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the osmf-talk