Sorry-- looks like I forgot to copy the whole list. On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kathleen Danielson < kathleen.daniel...@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 <frede...@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 frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
