[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
moltonel 3x Combo
moltonel at gmail.com
Tue Oct 21 13:33:47 UTC 2014
On 21/10/2014, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Sarah Hoffman wrote:
That was a disheartening read.
The transparency issue is the one that shocks me (a "basic
contributor") most, in a project that has open data as its founding
purpose and that is firmly rooted in the open source community. I
expect to be able to look into the inner workings of any important OSM
body. I know that discussions can be heated, that opinions and
wordings can change, that mistakes can be made, etc. It's par for the
course, don't hide it, we don't mind and neither should you.
The other issues are bad as well, but in a sense, they're not my
problem. They make life hard for board members and should be fixed,
but they don't cast a shadow over OSM as a whole. It's surprising to
see such contrast between OSM's general doocracy and the OSMF's more
bureaucratic approach, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just fix
it for your own sakes, OSMF members.
> I would like to see:
> - the whole board stand down in advance of this election;
> - now and in the future, those who have already served two
> standard-length terms (i.e. six years) should refrain from re-election
> and further involvement; this is good practice in any organisation (e.g.
> the US presidency!) but especially so in a fast-moving technology project.
I +1 that with all the authority of my 1000-ish changesets, edits, and
posts :p It seems like an obvious starting point to restore the
community's^W^Wmy trust in the OSMF (even if the list of board members
doesn't change much this time round).
More information about the talk