[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board

Kathleen Danielson kathleen.danielson at gmail.com
Thu Oct 23 08:47:06 UTC 2014

> There has been some discussion between Michael, the board and myself on
> changing the inner workings of the OSMF a bit which potentially could
> address some of the remaining issues, however these are at a very early
> discussion stage.

Simon, would you care to shed light on this? This seems like a good time to
bring conversation out into the open, so that the community can give input,
rather than waiting until things have already been decided. The deadline
for someone to announce their candidacy is in just over 12 hours, so today
is rather critical for OSMF. I would hate for something to come out in a
day or a week that could have compelled someone to run.

Speaking of timelines, I'd like to register my disappointment that it
wasn't made more obviously known that the deadline has already passed to
join the foundation to be eligible to vote in the upcoming election [1]. I
certainly understand why the 30 day rule is in place, but we talk about how
few community members are actually OSMF members, and yet the AGM wasn't
formally announced until *yesterday*, [2] only 17 days in advance. I also
absolutely understand the challenges around scheduling at conferences, but
I wasn't aware of this rule, and I think it's fair to assume many other
people weren't as well.  By failing to publicize this important deadline to
the larger community, a key opportunity has been lost to increase the
membership as well as to hear the voices of more community members in our
annual election. To me, this communicates either satisfaction with the
status quo ("why expand the voting base if we're happy with how elections
have gone in the past?"), or simply apathy. Both are disappointing.

There is still quite a bit that I want to say in response to the messages
of the past few days, but it's taking me some time to formulate the bulk of
my thoughts. That said, I would like to voice my support for Richard's
suggestion that the full board step down. I hope most of them will stand
for re-election, but I think we've heard that whichever 2 people we elect
are likely to be burnt out and sapped of whatever energy they have going
into the election. Don't think that I don't understand the challenge that
comes with the potential loss of institutional memory. It's something we've
discussed many times on the OSM-US board. I do think that it's a drastic
option, but I can't see anything short of a drastic option making a
substantial difference. If the past few days have taught us anything, it's
that the OSMF is fundamentally broken and doesn't have the energy needed to
fix that. This project can and should be able to and *has* done great
things, but it could be so much more. No, we don't always agree with what
"more" means, but with a governing body (which is what OSMF is, even if
that isn't made explicit) that cannot accomplish things, we're not going to
see any version of "more".

Yes, I've decided to stand for election, and no, I don't expect my view to
make me particularly popular (or electable), but I truly care about this
project, and I want to see our community become a healthy one. I think a
shakeup in leadership could help us get there.

item 75)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20141023/6df961c4/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list