[OSM-talk] Postponing elections, or other alternatives (Was: Modus operandi of the board)
mike at ayeltd.biz
Tue Oct 28 11:54:57 UTC 2014
I thank Christoph and Kathleen for obliquely raising an issue ... which
I'd crudely put as politics versus bureaucracy. It is a very important
one and touches back on the topic of modus operandi of the OSMF board.
I, perhaps in a minority, regard the entire OSMF set-up as volunteer
bureaucrats ... we are primarily helping protecting and growing a
resource, the OSM database, that is not ours. And, as I learnt during
the license change process, consensus-seeking is an e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y
important part of the bureaucracy role.
So, Christoph, yes, I like to see what positions candidates take, it
helps me decide who will be the best bureaucrat and thus who I will
personally vote for. And Kathleen, yes, board members should be both
seeking and forming consensus. And if one starts that as a candidate,
all the better. Just remember that consensus is not always the loudest
On 28/10/2014 11:50, Kathleen Danielson wrote:
> If you are concerned that something might "seem harsh," perhaps you
> shouldn't say it. I'm fairly certain you could have expressed your
> point without telling me that I am "opportunistically doing whatever
> the majority wants".
> What I am doing, in fact, is gathering information. I am working to
> see if there is consensus to be built. I am asking if this is
> something that others would like to see pursued. I think that people
> like Richard have made the case for disbanding the board beautifully,
> and I don't think that I would have much to add. In fact, since
> Richard specifically called me out as a part of the new generation of
> leaders, it would seem rather self-serving for me to fiercely campaign
> for it. I do have my own opinions about what I think we should do.
> I've expressed some of them on these lists. I see a lot of merit in
> the idea of restarting the board with a fresh mandate, but it's
> complicated now that we have 3 seats to elect, rather than 2-- perhaps
> we don't need to take such an extreme measure anymore. However, the
> fact that the 3rd seat only opened up a few hours before the window to
> announce candidacy closed makes this even more complicated, because I
> feel confident that with more time it would have changed the field of
> candidates. Finally, I would like to see an election held again soon
> with a larger voting base, because the events of the past two week or
> so have certainly made more people interested in voting who had never
> been members before (like you, perhaps).
> This is all quite complex. I am far less interested in being elected
> to the board than I am interested in helping the OSM community. I
> decided to run because of the trainwreck that we saw unfolding last
> week on this mailing list. I only had another day or two to decide if
> I was going to run, and that was the only thing I could think to do to
> help. I spent the last year on the OSM-US board, so I certainly have
> the credentials for it. This project is important. I can help. If the
> membership agrees that I can help by being a member of the board, they
> will elect me in. Great. If not, great-- I'll probably have lower
> blood pressure as a result. Still, I'm not going to stop trying to
> help this community, because it is a project and a group of people
> that I believe in.
> This email isn't a part of my "election campaign". It's just me,
> asking my peers what they want, because maybe I am in a position to do
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hormann
> <chris_hormann at gmx.de <mailto:chris_hormann at gmx.de>> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Kathleen Danielson wrote:
> > I'm curious about whether the membership is interested in us
> > some kind of "reboot". We've only heard a few voices on the topic,
> > which has made me reluctant to work on organizing anything that
> > go against the membership's wishes.
> This is more or less why i added these questions to
> to encourange everyone - members and candidates - to make up their
> To be frank - if you expect the OSMF members to have an opinion on the
> matter you should as an OSMF member yourself also have an opinion.
> People who have a clear stance on this will probably want to vote for
> someone who shares their opinion, not for someone who - i am sorry if
> this seems harsh - opportunistically will do whatever the majority
> I fully understand if you or other candidates think you cannot (yet)
> form a qualified opinion on this but then i think you can't expect
> from the membership either.
> Personally i would want to vote for someone who clearly states her/his
> support for a restart since i find the accounts of Richard, Frederik
> and others pretty convincing and supported by the observable facts
> about the OSMF work. I am well aware this would also involve the risk
> of the results being even worse than now (as for example indicated by
> Randy Meech). But i am not an OSMF member so these thoughts are quite
> Thanks by the way to you and the other candidates for answering the
> questions on the wiki.
> Christoph Hormann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk