Everybody volunteers their time and knowledge but the existence of a board at OSMF doesn't simply mean that some volunteers are now more equal than others. (Organisations frequently rotate through board members.)
> > Thinking about structure, some discussion should be given as to OSMF > possibly converting to a co-operative structure - it's the perfect type of > organisation to benefit from a co-op arrangement, either an IPS Mutual, > BenCom or even workers co-op. People can be nominated to represent the org > but ultimately they are answerable to all Members. It can also seek > investment and those members can also gain one vote (irrespective of > contribution) in company business. > > As it is, OSMF seems notionally answerable to the greater OSM community > after being nominated to oversee its concerns and become custodian of the > equipment, run outreach projects, fundraise etc. The board is elected by > just 358 paid OSMF members from (we can only assume) the OSM community (of > thousands? Tens of thousands?). The work they do is fabulous and > contributes to the continuation of OSM but there's still not, that I can > see, a sufficiently stable framework in place should this arrangement > change. > > If OSMF decided to function differently, selectively disregard the > community or even operate oligarchically as 'benevolent dictators' what > could be done? Not much short of an insurrection or establishment of > parallel service with a new name as they hold all the cards. A worldwide > project deserves membership representation and answerability of the > controlling board. > > My concern here comes from seeing other community organisations torn apart > by subsets of nominated people who initially took charge, ran it with some > vision, decisiveness but when they got cold feet or wanted a change, the > organisation inevitably ran onto the rocks through lack of continuity and > attrition. It's often very hard to resurrect a project or organisation once > it's ground to a halt. > > > ______________________________**_________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk> > OSM is complex. We do have differing aims and things are not black and white. I took a civil service middle management course once that talked about personalities and management. For simplicity we can split them into type A and type B. Type B's where more likely to achieve their goals, they had lower staff turnover, their staff were happier and where better at handling complex problems. Type A were more forceful but less likely to communicate and seek input. Their projects were more likely to fail. From my computer background the larger the project the higher the failure rate. What is interesting is smaller projects have a higher rate of success. So we can expect projects that are limited in scope to do quite well. Adding a new sort of asset to OSM for example. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mapping_projects is a good example. Perhaps what we need is a newsletter to improve communications? If we are reliant on volunteers then "directive counseling" or telling them to STFU may not be the most productive way to get the most out of them. Cheerio John
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
