[Osmf-talk] AoA changes in Dec?

[Allan Mustard]

Simon, et al,

> Isn't that actually a "yes" then? 
No, it is not.  The OSM project has two domains.  The first domain
consists of the data, consisting of collection, entry, storage, and uses
of those data, and that domain is the working groups', with the caveat
that existential issues can and should be escalated to the Board (and
the Board does not suffer from uneasiness with delegation, but it does
feel quite strongly the obligation to reflect community sentiment and to
protect the long-term interests of the project).  The Board intercedes
quite rarely in the work of the working groups, in fact, as a review of
Board minutes would demonstrate.  

The second domain is the administrative side, including fundraising,
budgeting, strategic planning (which we are required by law to do), and
similar tasks unrelated to the data themselves.

I disagree that the working groups largely conduct Foundation business. 
They run the substantive side of the project, which the Foundation
"supports but does not control".  The LWG deals with uses of the data,
with substantive issues related to data usage, not with OSMF
administrative issues.  The OWG submits budgets for the hardware and
operating systems, decides what software may be permitted to run on our
machines, and the sysadmins on the OWG actually operate the hardware. 
The CWG facilitates communications about the data, and uses of data, and
collection of data.  The MWG is the only working group that might be
considered administrative, but even it is engaged in the substantive
work of expanding and diversifying the membership in order to expand our
collection of data.

At any rate, the Board's intent is as I have stated it, to allow the
Board to augment the budget committee and other administrative
committees (fundraising, personnel, etc.) with expertise from members of
the community (Foundation) who are not Board members.  These would not
supplant or duplicate the working groups.

Please PM me with your ideas on poison pills.

cheers,
apm

On 10/11/2020 1:56 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>
> Am 11.10.2020 um 17:01 schrieb Allan Mustard:
>>
>> Simon, et al,
>>
>> I can answer a couple of the questions and will leave the others for
>> other Board members to respond to.
>>
>>> Isn't that just a very roundabout way of saying that you want to
>>> rename working group to committees and potentially give them some
>>> more legal standing (in general for all 4 suggestions you didn't
>>> indicate -why- you would want to propose the change, leaving it to
>>> speculation). 
>> No.  The Working Groups would continue to do OSM business, i.e., deal
>> with data, license, software, hardware, SOTM, etc, aka the "fun"
>> stuff.  The committees would do OSMF (Foundation) business, which is
>> administrative, such as the budget, such as strategic planning (which
>> BTW is a legal requirement under the Companies Act 2006), etc.  Less
>> fun but necessary.  Right now, the AoA specifies that committees may
>> consist only of Board members, and we're finding that we Board
>> members could use a little help from the community. 
>
> Isn't that actually a "yes" then?
>
> The only active working group that is not engaging solely in OSMF
> business is the DWG, making the other ones "committees" would remove
> some uncertainty in how far they actually speak for and can commit the
> foundation. Not to mention that is might go a bit of the way to
> address the uneasiness the current board has with delegation.
>
>>> Again, while I think I can make a well educated guess at what you
>>> intend by making such a change, it would be better to spell it out.
>>> That said, it is completely unclear to me how you would want to
>>> differentiate between a member voting out of their own free will in
>>> a certain way and doing the same on orders of their employer.
>>> Essentially this would boil down to requiring members to refrain
>>> from voting on issues their employers have asked them to vote in a
>>> specific way, disenfranchising them of their voting rights. 
>> It's called takeover protection, with a particular eye on any
>> attempted hostile takeover.  OSM community includes a lot of very
>> intelligent people, including some with good statistical backgrounds,
>> who can certainly draw statistical inferences if a high percentage of
>> employees of company X is correlated with a number of votes for a
>> particular resolution or candidate.  The essence is as you describe,
>> but the point is not to disenfranchise, per se, but rather to
>> dissuade employers from seeking to influence how the community votes
>> in an organized manner.   This would not, incidentally, require an
>> amendment to the AoA, but rather adoption of a policy by the OSMF
>> membership.  The Board already has the authority under the AoA to
>> expel members.  If you have better ideas for takeover protection, now
>> would be a good time to propose them. 
>
> I would prefer other poison pills (mainly an asset lock on the OSMFs
> IP) as they make it unattractive to try a takeover in the first place,
> instead of measures that potentially lead to long battles in court
> after the fact. They just aren't practical as long as the corporate
> structure and whereabouts of the OSMF are not set in stone.
>
> More generally I'm not convinced that there is really a solution to
> the boards concerns at all, given that employer - employee
> relationships are just one of many ways we can have external entities
> trying to influence the OSMF to further their interests.
>
> Simon
>
>> cheers,
>> apm
>>
>> On 10/11/2020 10:15 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 11.10.2020 um 15:53 schrieb Rory McCann (OSMF Board):
>>>>
>>>>  * that any OSMF member, not just board members, may serve on
>>>> committees;
>>>
>>> Isn't that just a very roundabout way of saying that you want to
>>> rename working group to committees and potentially give them some
>>> more legal standing (in general for all 4 suggestions you didn't
>>> indicate -why- you would want to propose the change, leaving it to
>>> speculation).
>>>
>>>>  * that people who get free membership via the Active Contribution
>>>> Membership system get regular membership, not just the current
>>>> associate membership;
>>>
>>> Doesn't that run afoul of the guarantee regular members have to
>>> commit to?
>>>
>>>>  * that if you vote in accordance with orders from your employer or
>>>> other authority,  you aren't a member any more and your vote
>>>> doesn't count;
>>>
>>> Again, while I think I can make a well educated guess at what you
>>> intend by making such a change, it would be better to spell it out.
>>> That said, it is completely unclear to me how you would want to
>>> differentiate between a member voting out of their own free will in
>>> a certain way and doing the same on orders of their employer.
>>> Essentially this would boil down to requiring members to refrain
>>> from voting on issues their employers have asked them to vote in a
>>> specific way, disenfranchising them of their voting rights.
>>>
>>>>  * and whether there should be a third, non-voting class of
>>>> membership, called "supporting member".
>>>
>>> Again "why?".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are not 100% sure exactly how many we will propose, and exactly
>>>> what the wording will be. We will draft and redraft and think and
>>>> consult. Please provide feedback, praise, curses, prayers, and
>>>> hexes. If/when we have more concrete wording, we will, naturally,
>>>> post more.
>>>>
>>>> On the general topic of AoA changesm are there any AoA changes you
>>>> would like? I am calling for an open discussion. 🙂
>>>
>>> Term limits that are actually term limits?
>>>
>>> We've already voted to not have those, so I wouldn't press you on this.
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> OSM is an open project, we should work in the open. So I am
>>>> emailing yous.
>>>>
>>>> As always, if you would like to publish something anonymously, the
>>>> board can consider that. Please email board at osmfoundation.org
>>>> (either using your email address, or you could try something like
>>>> http://anonymouse.org/anonemail.html but we haven't confirmed yet
>>>> that that works). As always, if you would like to contact the board
>>>> privately, email board at osmfoundation.org. As always, this is a
>>>> public message, please feel free to inform other OSM(F) people,
>>>> especially if you think they may not have seen it.
>>>>
>>>> Rory
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201011/82b184d0/attachment.htm>