[OSM-talk] OSM Foundation voting

[Jo Walsh]

dear all,

> Steve wrote:
> >people, we even voted. In my mind that stage is all over. What's next is
> >Etienne, Imi (if he's still up for it) and I hold an IRC meet to focus
> >on what to work on, define membership and so on. I'm happy to cut in
> >half our term lengths or something, but we have to get moving somehow.

If I can join Tom's exalted company as a fellow kibitzer and slacker
who didn't get round to registering, I would just like to say: I agree
with Steve wholeheartedly. A large amount of the point of setting up a
foundation is to get good governance practises in place. You have to
start somewhere, create a foundation for a foundation. So this wasn't
perfect; so you'll get it right next time. 

I don't think there's any question about the appropriateness or 
involvement of the current officers. The "voting membership" 
demonstrated their commitment and the board should be able to design
rules in which the voters provide them with effective oversight.

OSGeo had a bootstrap stage a little bit like this, in which 25 people
selected 5 out of their number as an "interim board", at a meeting
organised on a first-come-first-served basis which many people were
chagrined to be unable to attend. There was an "interim board" for a
while which decided how the voting membership should expand itself.

Is the complaining helping create a stable basis for OSMF? The
kibitzers, myself included should in penitence contribute 5 lines of
code or 5 annotated ways per line of email to OSM ;)

xoxo,


jo