[Osmf-talk] Perhaps some misunderstandings | Re: AoA changes in Dec?

[Rory McCann (OSMF Board)]

On 11.10.20 21:06, Clifford Snow wrote:
> The suggestion that we might disenfranchise voters because of a 
> statistical inference is not something that I would ever vote for

Perhaps I was being too pedantic. For context, Some in OSMF have said 
that I first need to provide a philosophical justification for universal 
behaviour rules before advocating for a Code of Conduct! i.e. “if you 
want bring in a CoC, first solve all of Philosophy & Ethics”. I wrote 
what I did pre-empting that argument. Perhaps, I was starting off too 
philosophical. 🙂

How do we make decisions if not based on weighing evidence? I don't 
think we should use Tarot Cards, or something like that. The idea of 
weighing up evidence is common(!!!).

Already the board can vote to expel someone based on our “reasonable 
opinion, that person's conduct interferes or is likely to interfere with 
the Foundation achieving one or more of its objects”. The person can 
appeal and the whole membership can vote on it, and make their decision 
on whatever grounds they like (like flipping a coin).

The board can also reject someone for any reason in the first 30 days 
after they apply. It used to be 7 days, and last year I, and 93% of OSMF 
voters, voted to expand that to the current 30 days. How did you vote?

We aren't suggesting anything radical & unheard of.

> A group of employees might vote for a candidate because they know and 
> respect the person running for office. That we would even suggest their 
> votes not count doesn't conform to our Mission Statement.

I agree! 🙂 Thankfully no-one is suggesting that. Co-workers (or 
employee & boss) chatting around the coffee machine about OSMF stuff is 
totally fine. I've done it many times. 🙂

However people pay other people to leave spammy reviews on sites, people 
pay people to click captchas all day, people pay people to sign up for 
accounts for things. What if someone hires 100 people to sign up for an 
OSMF account, and to then vote for Person A in the board elections? What 
if your boss tells you that part of your job is to vote a certain way? 
What if your employment contract says you have to vote a certain way? 
What if your boss "recommends" you vote a certain way with the hidden 
threat that if you don't your job is at risk? That is what we want to 
address.

This protects the OSMF, but it also protects the worker. If one is in 
precarious employment, and your boss tells you to vote a certain way or 
lose your job, then you might not have a choice. But if your boss knows 
that it's pointless, that if they force you that it won't count

Cripes, there are some evil bosses, and people with no option but to 
accept terrible conditions.

> My suggestion is to continue to expand the OSMF membership. The members 
> will protect OSM from a takeover. The recent decision that allows people 
> to join with just 42 edits is a good first step. Right now our 
> membership is still small compared to the number of active mappers. I 
> would encourage the Board to find ways to significantly improve that 
> percentage. A good start would be to see a goal for 2021.

The OSMF Board has done lots of things to improve that. In 2020 OSMF 
membership has grown by about 20%. I don't think a specific numeric 
target is a good idea.