[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] A Better Map

Serge Wroclawski emacsen at gmail.com
Wed Oct 22 20:54:05 UTC 2014


I want to actually apologize for one mis-statement. Michael Collinson
from the MT actually was very good about this and one-on-one, board
members who I speak with have been kind/supportive,

I want to also point out that this is not about me getting recognition
for my work on OSM, but about the general lack of support that the
volunteers can get from the board, when just a pat on the back would
be nice.

The board is under incredible stress and strain, and they're
volunteers like the rest of us, but there's a ton of work being done
by groups like the Operations Team, the License Working Group, the
Management Team, the Communications Working Group, the Data Working
Group, etc. All of these folks deserve more support and recognition.

- Serge

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Kate,
>
> Replies in-line.
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd say the size of the board to me is not necessarily the issue. I do think
>> however having a board elected completely just from the OSMF membership
>> isn't the best approach. Those elected from OSM contributors (I frequently
>> have seen in the past people post people's OSM edits for board elections)
>> are not necessarily the best to be on a board. It does not allow the
>> flexibility to seek out board members with specialized skills. For example
>> most of the board would not claim to be experts in finance, or legal
>> matters. I certainly think election from part of the community is not a bad
>> thing, but perhaps it isn't the only way.
>
> I think you're connecting board membership with officer positions and
> that doesn't need to be connected.
>
> It's possible (and often preferable) to have a board of people who
> oversee the officers but are not one of them. That also gives you
> flexibility because your board can say "We will nominate so-and-so to
> be CEO and so-and-so to be CFO, rather than using terms like
> "President" and "Treasurer". It also means the board positions can be
> equal, if the board so chooses.
>
> I think that this argument of separation of concerns makes a lot of
> sense, I think that board members should be members, but officers may
> not need to be.
>
>> Yes, I think that paid staff can certainly help with some of the tasks.
>> Financing this is a different issue however. I used to work as paid staff on
>> an animal shelter for abused/neglected horses that had many volunteers while
>> attending uni. When there was 2 feet of snow in the middle of January it was
>> the paid staff usually out feeding the animals and shoveling the manure.
>> Volunteers were great for the "fun" tasks such as giving tours, grooming
>> horses and giving pony rides at fundraisers. We need to seriously look at
>> what the OSM equivalent is of "shoveling manure" and if it is appropriate
>> hire people to do it.
>
> Yes, and adding on, some recognition would also be nice, even for volunteers.
>
> Last month I received an extremely nasty, rude email from someone
> about actions that I took as part of my DWG duties. That email
> insulted me, attacked my sexuality, was vaguely threatening to my
> fiancee, etc. and the board was CCed by the original author. None of
> the board members or members of management team (who was also CCed)
> said a word about it.
>
> This kind of dismissal for our feelings as individuals as we put work
> into the project is really disheartening.
>
> - Serge



More information about the talk mailing list