[Osmf-talk] AGM

[john whelan]

I assume that those members who have paid are fairly simple to identify.
It's financial data so it really should be accurate.

Those who are deemed eligible because of the amount of mapping they have
done should also be simple to identify.  We have tools that can extract how
many days people have mapped from the OSM database.

Is the problem we are trying to keep records separately rather than extract
from two sources or matching up names to mappers?

Thanks John

On Sat, Oct 19, 2024, 21:58 Courtney, <courtney.williamson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, all,
>
> I really hope that we can stop making personal attacks on one another.
>
> I was very open in the GM today that I think the balloting process was
> problematic--I think that is what Steve is referring to.  (I can't speak to
> the second half of his post.)
>
> First, this isn't a critique of any person. I know many people worked hard
> on this issue. I am making an observation about a broken system.
>
> It is quite clear to me that despite the efforts of many well-intended
> people, including the very hard-working MWG, the OSMF is currently not able
> to communicate accurately to all of its members about their eligibility to
> vote at the Annual General Meeting.
>
> It is my opinion that not being able to accurately manage the data of its
> members is a fundamental problem for a membership organization.
>
> Here are facts that I know. I hope others can fill in the gaps so that the
> community has the full story.
>
>  - There were known issues about the balloting process, some of which date
> back to the 2023 election.  You can read through many of the threads here:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2024-October/008884.html
>
>  - 1971 people were eligible to vote (this was said in the meeting.)
>  - 740 voted
>  - 122 people received an ineligibility notice
>  - Of the 1971 who were eligible, some - it was not announced how many -
> were incorrectly part of the 122 who received an ineligibility notice.
>  - Which means that some of the 122 were actually eligible and may not
> have voted due to receiving an ineligibility notice.
>
> I was one of the 122.  I got an email that said I wasn't eligible.  I knew
> I was eligible, so I emailed the  MWG and asked.  Within one day, someone
> had responded and a ballot was sent. It was said in the meeting today that
> anyone who inquired about the ineligibility notice, who was eligible,
> received a ballot. That's good to know and a credit to the MWG.
>
> However, what about the people who did not know they should inquire?
>
> It is not an acceptable solution to expect the people who receive
> inaccurate information due to a record keeping problem to self-identify.
>
> In OSM it is not uncommon to have very detailed and prolonged debates
> about tiny nuances to do with the map data. Accuracy is one of the
> most commonly shared values in this community. The fact that I was almost
> the only person at the meeting to express any kind of concern about an
> election going forward when there was a known issue with regard to the
> membership data that is affecting the balloting really disturbed me.
>
> If the system doesn't have a mechanism for handling a persistent,
> fundamental problem with membership record keeping that affects election
> balloting, then the system is broken.
>
> I don't think it's enough to pass this on to the new board to solve.
> People have been working on this problem for awhile--it is clearly
> exceeding the limits of our volunteers' time. It is not enough to "do our
> best" and try again later. The OSMF is a dues paying membership
> organization. It is the OSMF's responsibility to be exact in its financial
> accounting and member record keeping.  It also owes each of its members the
> one tangible benefit it promises them: the ability to vote in the AGM,
> provided the eligibility criteria are met.  I don't think that promise was
> kept this year. I am not even sure that it was kept last year--I don't
> know.
>
> An expedient and, likely paid, solution must be sought.
>
> -Courtney
>
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 7:29 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonewolf at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>>
>> It's a shame the original founder lacked the charisma and vision to leave
>> behind a more sustainable organisation.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 3:10 PM Steve Coast <steve at stevecoast.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I’m told that the OSMF doesn’t know who its members are, that this is a
>>> long standing problem, and, that in 2024 ineligibility notices were sent to
>>> members incorrectly.
>>>
>>> Is this true?
>>>
>>> I’m also told OSMF forgot to invoice a donor for a $300k grant and
>>> nearly lost the money.
>>>
>>> Is this true?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Steve
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20241019/8828367d/attachment.htm>