[Osmf-talk] AGM

[Simon Poole]

Hi Courtney

I completely agree that the cloud of doubt surrounding the voting 
process is less than ideal, however as I pointed out post meeting 
yesterday, the complexity of determining eligibility is of our own 
making. We wanted the privacy preserving aspects of associated 
membership, we wanted members that can't vote for a long waiting period 
and we wanted unpaid membership achievable in two different ways 
combined with the other complexities. Certain aspects of that will 
"always" require custom handling (for example determining mapping days) 
and with that will have an increased risk of going wrong.

One of the hopes I've had for the domicile move of the OSMF is that at 
least a bit of the complexity with respect to membership could be 
removed, it is however unclear how far along that project is.

All that said I would expect a short post-mortem from the MWG outlining 
the root cause of the issue, how many members were affected and what can 
be done to avoid the issue in the future.

Simon

Am 20.10.2024 um 03:54 schrieb Courtney:
> 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/20241020/d4a6de7a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20241020/d4a6de7a/attachment.sig>