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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Thu Oct 23 15:56:15 UTC 2014


Sorry for sounding like a broken record to some: there are no EGMs or
AGMs any more under UK law, there are simply general meetings, there is
not even a requirement to have any at all (that is why we are suggesting
adding such a clause to the articles at the GM in Argentina) and you
could just as well have one on 365 days of the year.

The board could realistically schedule a GM with or without elections in
March or April, remote participation is possible since last year so
there are multiple ways to participate. Obviously this depends on the
board actually agreeing to do so except if you want to require one via
the mechanics of a request by the members (needs 5% of the regular
members). As I've pointed out there are other reasons to disassociate
the meeting from SOTM in any case so I wouldn't expect much resistance.

Simon

Am 23.10.2014 17:23, schrieb Kathleen Danielson:
> Sorry-- looks like I forgot to copy the whole list.
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kathleen Danielson
> <kathleen.danielson at gmail.com <mailto:kathleen.danielson at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>     Hi Frederik,
>
>     You've got a few really interesting ideas in here. Some quick
>     questions:
>
>     On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Frederik Ramm
>     <frederik at remote.org <mailto:frederik at remote.org>> wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         On 10/23/2014 01:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>         > Absolutely no force required. I would hope that the existing
>         board
>         > members would recognise the virtue of a fresh mandate and a
>         clean start.
>
>         A radical step, but I like it. I'd be more than happy to
>         withdraw my
>         candidacy if there was a spirit of rebooting. We wouldn't even
>         need
>         seven new candidates; we could simply elect a few and they
>         could then
>         add new un-elected board members as they like (article 79 in
>         the AoA).
>
>      
>     I really like this idea, although, as I acknowledged earlier, I
>     definitely know there are some challenges. 
>
>      
>
>
>         Instead of rushing through such an unprecedented measure, we
>         could also
>         do it in a more orderly fashion: Have this year's AGM decide
>         that the
>         board should prepare to resign altogether at the next AGM, and
>         prepare
>         the election of a full new board. This event would then be
>         known long in
>         advance and people would have time to prepare their bids for a
>         seat on
>         the rebooted body. Independent of the actual legal powers of
>         the AGM,
>         certainly no board member could ignore such an express
>         declaration by
>         the very people they're serving.
>
>
>     What if we had some sort of compromise, and we asked the
>     membership if we could hold another AGM in 3 months, followed 2
>     weeks (or so) later by an election? We've already talked about
>     decoupling it from SOTM, and given what a global project it is,
>     it's unrealistic to expect a majority of voting members to be able
>     to attend SOTM. I haven't checked the bylaws, but I would guess
>     there's no rule against having *more* than one AGM per year.
>     OSM-US has started holding our AGMs remotely. I'm sure other
>     groups do as well.
>
>     If we did a 3 month time scale, we still wouldn't be making rash
>     decisions, but we would have more chance of maintaining the
>     momentum we've seen over the past month or so. The current board
>     could also focus energy on preparing things so that there can be a
>     smooth transition, even if there is high turnover in the board. 
>      
>
>
>         Another thing, while we're throwing doors wide open. In many
>         political
>         systems around the world, the electorate doesn't elect a group
>         of people
>         with wildly different goals. Instead, people form parties and the
>         electorate decides for a party, and the party will then form the
>         government. (Grossly simplifying, I know.) That way, people in
>         government have to fight each other to a much lesser degree
>         than they
>         would if government were comprised of people following different
>         political views and goals.
>
>         By appointing seven directors individually, on the one hand we
>         have the
>         advantage that they can keep each other in check; we, as the
>         electorate,
>         don't have to be super careful, if we elect someone who's
>         incompetent or
>         a kleptomaniac, the others on the board will hopefully notice
>         and fix it
>         somehow. On the other hand, there's the danger of seeding the
>         board with
>         a couple of difficult personalities that make life hard and reduce
>         productiveness for the rest of them.
>
>         Should we perhaps vote for "teams"? Just like a team can
>         assemble and
>         bid for holding a SotM, should we allow a team to bid for
>         being the OSMF
>         board for a year?
>
>
>     This is a really fun idea. I'm not sure if I agree with it, but I
>     LOVE the creative thinking for the organization of OSMF. 
>
>      
>
>
>         Bye
>         Frederik
>
>         --
>         Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org
>         <mailto:frederik at remote.org>  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         talk mailing list
>         talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20141023/437801ac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20141023/437801ac/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the talk mailing list