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

[Christopher Beddow]

I think the point sounded to me like statistical inference would be a
correlation which is assumed to be causation scenario.

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 12:53 Rory McCann (OSMF Board) <
rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201015/df4e941b/attachment.htm>