Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: > One issue is we really have no idea what the OSMF membership wants. We > know what some vocal people who write English well want. What a lot of > communities do to determine this is have a yearly community survey. Simply > voting for board members itself doesn't give any idea what people generally > want. For example last year I received the most votes in the board > election. Does that mean I have "brand recognition", people liked my > manifesto or simply there were people that thought only men shouldn't be on > the OSMF board? We have no idea. A community survey is one way we could > start to get a better grip on the desires for the OSMF. Of course we still > would be bound to the opinions of only those that like to answer surveys. While it's true that we operate somewhat in the blind, just surveying OSMF members will only give a peek into the community, not just people who respond to surveys but the small handful of OSMF membership, We need is to think of the bigger community. Ideally we conduct an annual survey of all mappers and OSM stakeholders. Getting a high response rate would be very desirable so we hear from the many that are not vocal on mailing lists and IRC channels. I suspect that its a small handful of people that influence the Board. I'd like to see a substantial increase in the OSMF membership. Not sure what it will take. Certainly cost is an issue, but it must be more that cost since membership isn't that expensive. I think the US Chapter has done a good job of offering discounts to SOTM-US for it's members. I'd recommend the Board at least adopt a similar strategy. That alone isn't sufficient, but it is a start. I was part of a group that felt the Board should survey the community. We got started, but failed to complete a survey because of the difficulty of creating one in multiple languages. I'm happy to see Kate suggest an annual survey. If there is anything I can do, please let me know. We still have the unfinished survey available. Clifford -- @osm_seattle osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi All, I felt I should speak up as the newest board member. I certainly think there are things that OSMF could do to function better as well as the OSMF Board. I think it can be difficult to move forward when everyone has very strong feelings about the project, but they sometimes seem at odds with each other. Often it can feel like the person with the most time at their email box can simply wear everyone else down. I don't think OSM and the OSMF are an exception to this though. One issue is we really have no idea what the OSMF membership wants. We know what some vocal people who write English well want. What a lot of communities do to determine this is have a yearly community survey. Simply voting for board members itself doesn't give any idea what people generally want. For example last year I received the most votes in the board election. Does that mean I have "brand recognition", people liked my manifesto or simply there were people that thought only men shouldn't be on the OSMF board? We have no idea. A community survey is one way we could start to get a better grip on the desires for the OSMF. Of course we still would be bound to the opinions of only those that like to answer surveys. Another difficulty is there is no board primer. When you join the OSMF board you mostly just jump in. One of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) board members began a board primer for HOT after they joined HOT's board. This was to help with this very issue. Part of it is just helping people to understand what it means to be on a board. How many people that join the OSMF board have never served on any board at all? Frederik's manifesto isn't really anything I can specifically disagree with though I suspect if Frederik and I were to debate the items we will have very different approaches to them. To me that is the major sticking point generally within the OSMF. We don't have a great way to find common ground. I hope this year we will have an in person meeting, not everyone is even in agreement that meeting in person helps with cohesion. So you can see that much work is to be done. It is difficult for me to read some statements about problems in the board without feeling that they are jabs at other board members without naming names. This is a sign of what we really need is trust, not necessarily agreement, but trust. While I haven't really done much in the past year, I hope that we can find ways to be more effective. I think simply publicly saying "there is a problem" is a good start. Best, -Kate On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Stefan Keller wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder why we're discussing here everything else but what Frederik > mentioned in his manifesto and in this reply above. > > Richard voted that the board should stand down. > I can't oversea the situation but I tend to give our colleages a > second chance to fix things. > I do that also knowing that OSMF is young with few members, many of > them being also members in WGs. > > On 2014-10-21 15:47 GMT+02:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > ... > > In short, what I'd like to see is (a) more people joining OSMF, and (b) > > at least some these people actually following and commenting on what the > > board does, or doesn't do, in their name. > > To me, actions speak louder than words. > So, I decided to join OSMF these days. > And I propose to add the following to the board meeting agenda: > * Setting up a clearer modus operandi of the board and working groups > * Making the board meeting agenda publicly available > * Advancing trademark policy > * Setting up a plan to get more corporate members > (actually, these points are just taken from Frederik's plea). > > Yours, S. > > 2014-10-22 0:05 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > > > > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Howto tag a prominent dead tree?
Subject: [OSM-talk] Howto tag a prominent dead tree? Hi, this must have come up before... any ideas? What does "prominent" mean? If the dead tree has some cultural or historical significance, then it could be placed in the same category as, for example, a statue or other form of art for public consumption. nick *** WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email without appropriate authority. If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not waived or destroyed by that mistake. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with your computer system). Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. *** ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, I wonder why we're discussing here everything else but what Frederik mentioned in his manifesto and in this reply above. Richard voted that the board should stand down. I can't oversea the situation but I tend to give our colleages a second chance to fix things. I do that also knowing that OSMF is young with few members, many of them being also members in WGs. On 2014-10-21 15:47 GMT+02:00, Frederik Ramm wrote: > ... > In short, what I'd like to see is (a) more people joining OSMF, and (b) > at least some these people actually following and commenting on what the > board does, or doesn't do, in their name. To me, actions speak louder than words. So, I decided to join OSMF these days. And I propose to add the following to the board meeting agenda: * Setting up a clearer modus operandi of the board and working groups * Making the board meeting agenda publicly available * Advancing trademark policy * Setting up a plan to get more corporate members (actually, these points are just taken from Frederik's plea). Yours, S. 2014-10-22 0:05 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole : > > Jason, > > I suspect you are slightly over interpreting what has been said up to > now. Our accountant and the treasurer have control of the back accounts > and I wouldn't expect to have direct access (nor likely other board > members). The board has relied on the treasurer for cash management and > I have no reason to believe that there are any issues with that other > than it is not very transparent. Other points wrt financial planning and > SOTM have already been raised. > > Historically there seems to have been very little financial reporting, > the board did however three years back or so, as a principle, ask for > quarterly reports, which IMHO is enough given the size of the > organisation and number of transactions. This has been a long time in > the making, but our accountant does produce them now, there is simply > some fail in bringing them to the boards attention (and a further step > would actually be publishing them). Or to put it differently: the OSMF > likely has never had as good control of its financials as right now, > there is simply still more to do. > > There is an interesting point in that there is no external/internal > audit of any kind. Not unusual for small companies, but is a bit unusual > for a membership organisation. Very small SOSM for example has two > (elected) members review the accounts in lieu of a proper audit and > report their findings at the AGM. I could imagine doing something > similar in the OSMF (no idea if this causes any legal issues, but that > can be investigated) given that we currently probably don't want to > spend the money for a formal audit. > > Note that Oliver has announced (a couple of weeks back) that he will > resign as treasurer and I expect that the board will elect a replacement > or put an other solution in place at the first meeting after the elections. > > Simon > > Am 21.10.2014 22:37, schrieb Jason Remillard: >> Hi, >> >> This is an unhappy read. I am stunned that the board members don't >> have access to the bank registers. How can any decisions be made about >> the servers, STOM, fundraising effectiveness, etc without having a >> handle on the cash? The foundation handles so little money, it should >> be very simple keeping the bank registers up to date. Could our >> treasure, Oliver Kühn , please justify this policy on the talk list. I >> am going to be very reluctant to give more money to the foundation >> until this policy is changed. >> >> Jason >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating that some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration to achieve in the board. >>> >>> As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which >>> tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Jason, I suspect you are slightly over interpreting what has been said up to now. Our accountant and the treasurer have control of the back accounts and I wouldn't expect to have direct access (nor likely other board members). The board has relied on the treasurer for cash management and I have no reason to believe that there are any issues with that other than it is not very transparent. Other points wrt financial planning and SOTM have already been raised. Historically there seems to have been very little financial reporting, the board did however three years back or so, as a principle, ask for quarterly reports, which IMHO is enough given the size of the organisation and number of transactions. This has been a long time in the making, but our accountant does produce them now, there is simply some fail in bringing them to the boards attention (and a further step would actually be publishing them). Or to put it differently: the OSMF likely has never had as good control of its financials as right now, there is simply still more to do. There is an interesting point in that there is no external/internal audit of any kind. Not unusual for small companies, but is a bit unusual for a membership organisation. Very small SOSM for example has two (elected) members review the accounts in lieu of a proper audit and report their findings at the AGM. I could imagine doing something similar in the OSMF (no idea if this causes any legal issues, but that can be investigated) given that we currently probably don't want to spend the money for a formal audit. Note that Oliver has announced (a couple of weeks back) that he will resign as treasurer and I expect that the board will elect a replacement or put an other solution in place at the first meeting after the elections. Simon Am 21.10.2014 22:37, schrieb Jason Remillard: > Hi, > > This is an unhappy read. I am stunned that the board members don't > have access to the bank registers. How can any decisions be made about > the servers, STOM, fundraising effectiveness, etc without having a > handle on the cash? The foundation handles so little money, it should > be very simple keeping the bank registers up to date. Could our > treasure, Oliver Kühn , please justify this policy on the talk list. I > am going to be very reluctant to give more money to the foundation > until this policy is changed. > > Jason > >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto >>> >>> This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating >>> that >>> some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the >>> individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important >>> that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can >>> operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of >>> the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is >>> little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration >>> to achieve in the board. >> >> As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which >> tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] SotM Buenos Aires Program published!
Hello all, Have a look at the State of the Map Program for Buenos Aires, Argentina. And then get your tickets and book your flights! http://www.stateofthemap.org/program ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Oliver is seldom seen on the mailing lists, you might want to cc his board email oli...@osmfoundation.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, This is an unhappy read. I am stunned that the board members don't have access to the bank registers. How can any decisions be made about the servers, STOM, fundraising effectiveness, etc without having a handle on the cash? The foundation handles so little money, it should be very simple keeping the bank registers up to date. Could our treasure, Oliver Kühn , please justify this policy on the talk list. I am going to be very reluctant to give more money to the foundation until this policy is changed. Jason >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto >> >> This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating >> that >> some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the >> individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important >> that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can >> operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of >> the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is >> little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration >> to achieve in the board. > > > As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which > tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] JOSM Imagery Contrast
Am 20.10.2014 21:59, schrieb Mike Thompson:> Andrew, > > Thanks I will try and reach out to PovAddict, as well as submit a ticket > in Trac. About the ticket, someone was faster [1]. There is little hard coded support within the imagery preferences dialog but I did not use it lately and never for micro mapping. cu colliar [1] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/10417 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Am 21.10.2014 15:33, schrieb moltonel 3x Combo: > On 21/10/2014, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> Sarah Hoffman wrote: >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto > > That was a disheartening read. > > The transparency issue is the one that shocks me (a "basic > contributor") most, in a project that has open data as its founding > purpose and that is firmly rooted in the open source community. I > expect to be able to look into the inner workings of any important OSM > body. Note that Frederiks and my complaint has been about the inner workings of the OSMF not being transparent to board members, that is a different kettle of fish than transparency to the members and the general public (the later obviously wont work without the former though). To our members and the general public, IMHO the largest annoyance is having financials available in a reasonable time frame after the close of the financial year. This is mainly a cumulative effect of - choice of the financial year - UK tax return filing date - timing of SOTM/GM which results in the financials typically being presented more than one year after the end of the financial year they are from. As I've pointed out they are available a -lot- before that, but we have up to now failed at actually making them available. To use the example of expenses that Frederik raised, yes I would normally expect the board to have a good grip on the numbers and who has spent what, but I wouldn't expect a breakdown per person to be published (it likely wouldn't even be legal). The other financials related issue is that we don't publish a budget for our financial year (for the first time that I'm aware of we did try to bring together the numbers for an internal budget this year, still this is not really a replacement). We further have not really had a good handle on the risks associated with the largest line item, SOTM. > I know that discussions can be heated, that opinions and > wordings can change, that mistakes can be made, etc. It's par for the > course, don't hide it, we don't mind and neither should you. > > The other issues are bad as well, but in a sense, they're not my > problem. They make life hard for board members and should be fixed, > but they don't cast a shadow over OSM as a whole. It's surprising to > see such contrast between OSM's general doocracy and the OSMF's more > bureaucratic approach, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just fix > it for your own sakes, OSMF members. I don't think that even by a wide margin the OSMF could be described as bureaucratic, yes, procedure tends to be invoked, as Frederik pointed out, as a political ploy, but that is about it. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Howto tag a prominent dead tree?
2014-10-21 16:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. : > Hi, > > this must have come up before... any ideas? > I'd tag this probably with natural=tree as it still is a tree, even if dead. Alternatively, historic=tree ;-) if you don't like these, what about natural=dead_tree? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Howto tag a prominent dead tree?
Hi, this must have come up before... any ideas? Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi, On 10/21/14 13:42, Kathleen Danielson wrote: > more interested in what we (as > members) can do to make it a more functional place. Even when I was not a board member, I tended to be a little bit frustrated by how little the OSMF membership in general were interested in what their board (or theur foundation) does. There is no history in OSMF for the members trying to hold their board to account. The OSMF board can neglect to put important stuff on their agenda, neglect to hold board meetings, individual board members can skip board meetings many times in a row without explaining themselves, or we can postpone stuff indefinitely, and nobody will even so much as raise an eyebrow in public. In theory, the OSMF members are the boss and board is just a group of people asked by the members to run business for them until they convene next time. In similar organisations I know in Germany, it is absolutely not uncommmon for members to discuss and submit proposals to the AGM that would be binding for the board; and for people to actually discuss and argue and vote at an AGM. OSMF has no culture of democracy really; and this is most likely due to the founding story: This is not a political body, it's mainly a safeguard for things like our trademarks and a legal entity to operate our servers. And who would, as a member, get in the way of that? Why engage, emotionally, with another area of politics when all of us have enough of that in their lives already? OSMF itself says it doesn't want to be important, so maybe it shouldn't be important to me either. So we're all happy as long as things work somehow, and we vote for whichever name we've heard before, and don't bother asking questions, or reading minutes, or whatever. For me as a board member, it would have been very helpful to have an active membership actually watching what I do (or don't do), and asking the questions that may arise from in between the lines of some meeting minutes. I would have considered it normal to be held accountable; but that *may* be a cultural difference - there seems to be a certain school of thought whereby the democratic participation of members is reduced to voting for board once a year and asking questions would mean "you don't trust your board", and even while I was not yet on the board I was occasional chided by other members for asking critical questions. In short, what I'd like to see is (a) more people joining OSMF, and (b) at least some these people actually following and commenting on what the board does, or doesn't do, in their name. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
On 21/10/2014, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Sarah Hoffman wrote: >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto That was a disheartening read. The transparency issue is the one that shocks me (a "basic contributor") most, in a project that has open data as its founding purpose and that is firmly rooted in the open source community. I expect to be able to look into the inner workings of any important OSM body. I know that discussions can be heated, that opinions and wordings can change, that mistakes can be made, etc. It's par for the course, don't hide it, we don't mind and neither should you. The other issues are bad as well, but in a sense, they're not my problem. They make life hard for board members and should be fixed, but they don't cast a shadow over OSM as a whole. It's surprising to see such contrast between OSM's general doocracy and the OSMF's more bureaucratic approach, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. Just fix it for your own sakes, OSMF members. > I would like to see: > > - the whole board stand down in advance of this election; > - now and in the future, those who have already served two > standard-length terms (i.e. six years) should refrain from re-election > and further involvement; this is good practice in any organisation (e.g. > the US presidency!) but especially so in a fast-moving technology project. I +1 that with all the authority of my 1000-ish changesets, edits, and posts :p It seems like an obvious starting point to restore the community's^W^Wmy trust in the OSMF (even if the list of board members doesn't change much this time round). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
Hi Richard, I think you're right to post this here. While it is a matter of how the foundation board functions and pertains specifically to the election, I think that it would be preferable to have this discussion in a more open forum. I replied to the post in the osmf-talk list, but I'm reposting my reply in its entirety here, and I'll ask that people move conversation here. Hi Sarah, Thanks for highlighting Frederik's manifesto. I have to agree that it sheds some pretty bad light on how the board operates. I'll shy away from making any allegations of illegality because I know how difficult it can be to keep up with the paperwork in a tiny volunteer-run organization. Personally, I'm inclined to give the board the benefit of the doubt in terms of membership or financial information. I suspect that had to do with bandwidth, rather than secretive intent. As well, I can understand the aversion to having meeting minutes taken verbatim. The OSM-US board had several heated discussions over the last year while I was a member and I was glad to have a place for private discussion before we published our minutes/blog posts/etc. Still, you raise a very important point: Reading this manifesto indicates that there is little point in standing for > election as there is nothing but frustration to achieve in the board. The OSMF board sounds like an emotionally exhausting and draining body. I can wholly empathize, but it's still a problem. Personally, I'm a bit less interested in all of the current board members answering for Frederik's take on the group, and more interested in what we (as members) can do to make it a more functional place. It seems to me that we (generally speaking) enjoy complaining that the board doesn't do anything, to which we generally hear the response that the board's mandate is intentionally narrow, and yet this little glimpse into what's going on in there gives a fairly stark view of the climate each of our board members are working within. In a situation such as that, how can you be expected to take on much else? Who has the energy to deal with diversity initiatives, for example, when everything is seen as so political? Perhaps instead of the purpose of the board being too small, it's in fact too large-- maybe they need more support in the administrative workings. I'm reluctant to suggest more working groups, but finding some other mechanism for support that would free up the board to be more creative might be helpful. Maybe it's a matter of finding ways to test out new ideas in a less risky environment, meaning we as a membership need to encourage more experimentation and be more forgiving of failure. None of these are cure-alls (and some of them are probably horrific ideas), but it seems to me that yes, we want to elect passionate, excited people to our board, but just doing that isn't enough. We need to elect these people *and* make the structural changes that will help them be successful. Without that, we're going to keep burning out our board members, and I can't see us getting much done that way. Best, Kathleen On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > [this was originally posted to osmf-talk; I'm not a member of OSMF so > can't reply to it there. I'm also breaking my self-imposed discipline of > not posting to the talk@ list for this, but I figure it's important] > > Sarah Hoffman wrote: > >> while checking the candidate list for the upcoming board elections, I came >> across Frederik's maifesto here: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/ >> 2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto >> >> This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating >> that >> some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the >> individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important >> that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can >> operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of >> the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is >> little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration >> to achieve in the board. >> > > As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which > tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. > > It is clear, I'm afraid, that the OSMF board is broken. Plenty of people > know this privately but it hasn't been admitted publicly. We should stop > pretending. > > There are some really smart people in this project and it's sad that most > have chosen to involve themselves in their local organisations rather than > OSMF (I'm thinking particularly the US and France here). I have no personal > animus against the current board - quite the opposite, they're lovely > people - but it's clear it isn't working. (And I take my share of > responsibility as a one-time board member for failing to fix it.) > > I would like to see: > > - the whole board stand down in advance of th
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Modus operandi of the board
[this was originally posted to osmf-talk; I'm not a member of OSMF so can't reply to it there. I'm also breaking my self-imposed discipline of not posting to the talk@ list for this, but I figure it's important] Sarah Hoffman wrote: while checking the candidate list for the upcoming board elections, I came across Frederik's maifesto here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Frederik_Ramm/2014_OSMF_Board_Elections_Manifesto This sheds some rather bad light on how the board operates, indicating that some of the practises border on the illigal. I understand that this is the individual opinion of a single board member but I believe it is important that such accusations are discussed because I don't see how the board can operate efficiently otherwise. It is even more important in the light of the upcoming elections. Reading this manifesto indicates that there is little point in standing for election as there is nothing but frustration to achieve in the board. As a former board member, I would concur with Frederik's posting which tallies with my unhappy experience on the board. It is clear, I'm afraid, that the OSMF board is broken. Plenty of people know this privately but it hasn't been admitted publicly. We should stop pretending. There are some really smart people in this project and it's sad that most have chosen to involve themselves in their local organisations rather than OSMF (I'm thinking particularly the US and France here). I have no personal animus against the current board - quite the opposite, they're lovely people - but it's clear it isn't working. (And I take my share of responsibility as a one-time board member for failing to fix it.) I would like to see: - the whole board stand down in advance of this election; - now and in the future, those who have already served two standard-length terms (i.e. six years) should refrain from re-election and further involvement; this is good practice in any organisation (e.g. the US presidency!) but especially so in a fast-moving technology project. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Announce] Server maintenance – 26th October
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Harry Wood wrote: > The OpenStreetMap Foundation, Operations Working Group have scheduled a short > maintenance period which will occur from approximately 11:00 to 12:30 UTC, > during which time the database will be offline. > > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20141026T11&p1=1440&ah=1&am=30 I would like to use this opportunity to say an enormous THANK YOU to our wonderful admins, which with their work on the server infrastructure have been able to keep the project running and scaling up to what it is now with just minimal, yearly downtimes. Thank you! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
