[OSM-talk] Postponing elections, or other alternatives (Was: Modus operandi of the board)

Kathleen Danielson kathleen.danielson at gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 15:56:17 UTC 2014

FWIW, I'm also wary of resolutions dictating how the board operates. I
think that a survey (or similar) is a good idea, but as Kate says, it
doesn't require a resolution. Direct democracy is cumbersome and often
lacks nuance, which is why it's so infrequently used. Representative
democracies and their ilk are far more common simply because they are far
more efficient.

If I'm understanding this correctly, in the next week or so, before proxy
voting begins, we could ask the board to make a decision to include a
"nonbinding resolution" or, essentially a "good faith" resolution on the
ballot. If that passes the board, it could be on the ballot, and give
direction to the newly elected board to take [some action]. If it were
voted in, the board wouldn't legally have to do [some action], but
hopefully would follow the wishes of the electorate.

Is that a fair reading of what you said, Frederik?

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>

> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
>> I actually don't think it makes sense for the membership to approach
>> things by passing a bunch of resolutions requiring the board to do things.
>> I think certainly a drastic resolution like dismantling the entire board
>> and starting again is the type of resolution that would be something to
>> come from the membership.
>> Acting in the interest of the membership would be to conduct an annual
>> survey and develop a vision. Though really that would be something that
>> could happen as part of a fairly normal board strategic planning process.
>> I'd view this as being approached simply through the matter of the new
>> board finding common ground and better ways to approach the business of
>> running the OSMF. Meaning maybe a survey isn't the best way to determine
>> things, maybe there is another way. Rather than dictate the approach the
>> board should be tasked with doing what is in the best interest of the
>> organization. A part of this I would see as working with a facilitator and
>> others to educate board members in what generally it means from a legal and
>> operational standpoint to be on a board.
> My concern is that the Board will use it's perception of how OSM should
> operate without consulting the community. Or as a worst case, do nothing. A
> proper survey, with published results, not only helps the Board's decision
> gives us a framework for community discussions. We have many smart people
> that do not participate on the mailing lists. Getting their input will be
> difficult but we need to hear from as many people as possible. A survey
> does face the obstacles of language, cost, time and apathy.
> I applaud the use of a facilitator. As a former, and I might and really
> bad facilitator, their skills can help the Board reach good decisions. But
> even the best facilitator can't help if there isn't good data for the
> decisions.
> Lastly, it is still the Boards responsibility to make good decisions. They
> may not always agree with the community, for example, diversity, but the
> Board should be expected to do the right thing and to explain why they did.
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141024/dc69bc47/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list