[Osmf-talk] FOSSGIS position on OSMF hiring staff (WAS: Framework for the foundation's hiring practices)

Rory McCann rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org
Sun Jun 28 15:52:03 UTC 2020

I agree that having a person's job depend on a regular vote year on year has many problems, and I don't think it should be done.

But Michael isn't suggesting that, right? He's suggesting a general vote on the job description and merely a yearly report to the membership, not that the membership gets to vote on that job anymore. (right?)

So, while I think that sort of transparency requirement is good, I would hope that any OSMF employee would talk to the membership more than once a year! 🙂 So I'm not sure what's the point of such a weak requirement... 🤔 

On 26 June 2020 22:02:13 CEST, Michal Migurski <mike at teczno.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2020, at 12:35 PM, Michael Reichert
><osm-ml at michreichert.de> wrote:
>> Hi Mikel,
>> 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
>> candidates selected by the board or to be selected by the board but
>> the task description at the beginning of the hiring process (rather
>> the employee should do than the requirements towards applicants).
>We will get better staff candidates if they’re accountable to the board
>Board members are accountable to the voting membership and required to
>stand for re-election every two years. Staff members should be
>accountable to the board only. This division of responsibilities
>reflects the sharp differences between a board member’s knowledge and
>experience vs. that of a typical foundation voter. It also provides for
>a better pacing: as a potential candidate for a staff position, it
>would be important to me to know that my livelihood would not be
>impacted by an unpredictable vote between AGM elections, with
>potentially unreliable turnout.
>Approval by OSMF members should take place during the regular election
>cycle, when the community votes for board members who express policy
>positions about what jobs can be handled by the community vs.
>professionals. Mikel’s final graf expresses this well; we’d be
>unnecessarily constraining the work done by paid staff to have their
>job oversight handled through an open membership vote.
>michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:
>sf/ca            http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html
>osmf-talk mailing list
>osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200628/9f12a120/attachment.htm>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list