RE: Call for OSM Board Nominations - Feb 7, 2014

[NivF007]

Thanks for the announcement at http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... -2014.html

Could OSM kindly clarify the following?

Given those responsibilities, and upcoming term expirations for multiple directors and officers of the board of OSM, a call for nominations for directors of the board is being made at this time.

1. Specifically which directors' terms and corresponding positions are expiring?

Shortly following the election of these new directors, the annual OSM members meeting will take place. This annual meeting provides an additional opportunity for nominees to be elected to the OSM board.

2. Specifically who will be electing the new OSM Directors? (i.e. given OSM's by-laws, only OSM 'Members' can elect Directors - who currently are the OSM 'members' who will be voting?)

3. Will the candidate nominations be made public and will there be an opportunity for the community at large to review the candidate profiles and express support for those that they feel will best represent their interests?

4. Why are elections happening 'prior' to the AGM (i.e. prior to the 'additional opportunity for nominees' to be elected), as opposed to having 1 elections at which all nominated candidates will have an equal and balanced opportunity to be elected?

---

Thanks very much in advance for any clarifications - and much gratitude to all the OSM Directors for their extensive volunteer efforts!!!!

Warmest regards,

Niv

[porwig]

Hi Niv,

Here are my thoughts on your questions:

1. My term ends this month along with some others. I have shared publicly that I will not be requesting another term (although my term as President may be extended until the annual directors meeting that follows immediately after the members meeting).

The terms for all directors will end when the members meeting takes place and directors are elected for the coming year. This year's members meeting will likely take place in March.

2. For the upcoming members meeting, OSM directors will serve as members. That is consistent with what was published last year in these two blogs:

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... e-coc.html

http://community.joomla.org/blogs/leade ... sight.html

3. Publishing the names of new director nominees has not been a step in OSM's election process during the 3+ years that I have served.

It has been a step in OSM's election process to ask that all current directors who wish to serve for another year announce that on the OSM public email list, along with their goals and vision if they are re-elected. That step is also included in the process leading up to this year's members meeting.

4. I think having a director's election in advance of this year's first annual members meeting should be viewed as a one-time step in a first-time process. I think that the main benefit of adding that step is to bring on more members who will be eligible to vote during the first annual members meeting. There are currently 12 directors on OSM, and OSM bylaws allow for a maximum of 15 directors. OSM bylaws also allow directors to fill vacancies during the course of the year.

All new director nominees will have an equal opportunity to be elected in the election that takes place in advance of the members meeting, and then all new nominees along with current directors who wish to renew their terms will have an equal opportunity to be elected in the upcoming members meeting.

[jgress-]

Thanks for asking the questions, Niv and thanks for answering Paul.

Question:
How can we know who is interested in being nominated? It seems like if we nominated people that are truly interested, we would get better fits in the positions.

[porwig]

Hi Jenn,

Here are my thoughts on your question:

If anyone decides they are interested to serve, then they are encouraged to nominate themselves.

Also, if anyone thinks another person would be a good candidate, then they are encouraged to ask that other person if they are interested.

Part of OSM's evaluation process is also to follow up with all nominees and ask everyone if they are willing and interested to serve.

[NivF007]

Paul,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond and for all the work you and others are doing with the Governance Working Group.

Best regards,

Niv

[jgress-]

Thanks, Paul.

[jgress-]

I have a few other questions to add to clear up a bit of confusion to me and others I have spoken with...

1. What is the difference between being a Member on the OSM Board and being a Director of OSM?
2. What is a realistic time commitment required of a member or director of OSM? If there's a different time commitment between being a member or a director, will you please explain the difference?
3. How much time is required for attending events or in-person meetings as a member or director? If there's a difference between the two, will you please express that?
4. If current OSM members are willing to share, what has been your experience from a time commitment perspective?

Obviously the answer to question 1 will help explain 2 & 3 and obviously I am confused. Thus the questions to gain a bit of clarity.

Thanks in advance!!

[porwig]

Hi Jenn,

Thanks for your questions - here are my thoughts:

1. The primary responsibility for Members is to elect Directors during the annual members meeting. Our current bylaws empower directors to choose members. For now, the current directors have chosen ourselves as members. So from a practical standpoint, in the current situation, members *are* directors. Hopefully that will change by the time next year's annual members meeting takes place, when OSM aims to transition to some form of community-based membership organization.

2. Here is my general estimate of the time commitment to be a good active participating OSM director:

• 2 hours/month for board meetings (usually by Skype group voice call)
• 12 hours/month to keep up with and participate in OSM email discussions
• ~3 weeks/year of preferred but optional travel during the year (travel expenses paid)
• some additional time for other specific roles and duties

3. Please see above - hopefully that addresses that question.

4. I have given more time than is summarized above, partially because I have chosen to and also because the role of OSM President carries more responsibility than for others. I hope other directors will share from their experience.

Thanks again,

paul

PS - Nominations close this Friday!

[jgress-]

Hi Paul,

Helpful thoughts - thank you!

Of course, they brought up more questions to ask all based on ...

1. The primary responsibility for Members is to elect Directors during the annual members meeting. Our current bylaws empower directors to choose members. For now, the current directors have chosen ourselves as members. So from a practical standpoint, in the current situation, members *are* directors. Hopefully that will change by the time next year's annual members meeting takes place, when OSM aims to transition to some form of community-based membership organization.

Let me see if I've got this:
1. OSM Board Members elect Directors
2. OSM Directors choose Members
3. Right now, Members and Directors are the same people.
4. Ideally, Members and Directors are different people?

New questions:
1. Are we nominating people to be OSM Board Members or OSM Directors?
2. Are "officers" of the Board Members or Directors?
Or
3. Does it not even matter because they are the same people? (It seems like it would matter since Directors have greater commitments, right?)

I really appreciate your help answering my questions...very much.

[porwig]

No worries Jenn - the specifics of the current situation (OSM being self governing) can surely make the nuances between members and directors a bit confusing.

I think it may help to clarify the difference between the generic term of "board member" versus the specific term in the bylaws for "member".

• The terms "board member" and "director" are the same.
• The term "member" is technically not the same as "director", but (again for our current short-term situation) members are the same people as directors.

For your "let me see if I've got this" part, all your points are correct. Good going! For your #1, I would tweak that wording just a bit (given the above) to say "members elect directors in the annual members meeting".

Note: the OSM bylaws also give directors the right to elect directors during the course of the year to fill vacancies. From a practical standpoint, since directors are members right now, that is essentially no different than those who will vote at the annual members meeting.

Now for your new questions:

• Your #1: The two terms are the same (see above). Board members is just a more general term for the more technical term directors
• Your #2: Officers are elected by the directors. That takes place immediately following the annual members meeting. Some but not all officers must be directors.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. I know it can be confusing!

[jgress-]

Paul...thank you for trying to explain this so well.

I think a picture or diagram would be brilliant. I will try to work on one...it will be awful. I'm not a graphic designer. Yet, hopefully it will help me to get clear and others to be clear. I realized the other night at our JUG meeting when I was trying to explain that I totally lacked the ability or understanding to explain.

Thanks again. More after I get my crayons out.

[NivF007]

Jenn - thanks for asking some of the questions that I had too, and Paul again, thanks to you for the explanations and also to the Governance Working Group for all hard work that you folks are doing on behalf of the OSM/Joomla! Community.

I can only imagine how much of your personal time life has been dedicated for all our benefit - so a heartfelt thank you.

I too would like to get a better understanding of all 'OSM/Joomla!' family of working groups from an organizational perspective (i.e. perhaps an organizational chart including areas of responsibility) - I think this is an area that a lot of us newer to the 'Joomla! Ecosystem' struggle to better understand.

Perhaps when the new OSM Board comes in, this could be an area of focus for the next year to help us all gain a better understanding.

Best regards,

Niv

[jgress-]

I can only imagine how much of your personal time life has been dedicated for all our benefit - so a heartfelt thank you.

I agree wholeheartedly with Niv. Thank you, Paul and all other director/members of OSM.

I don't think I'm going to have time to get my crayons out and draw a picture. I was thinking I would talk to Mike Carson when I have time though. He did a talk at our JoomlaDay about OSM/CLT/PLT to help people gain a better understanding of how things work. Unfortunately, as an organiser of JoomlaDay, I didn't really get to listen to many of the talks. A bit busy those events are...

I would like to see maybe an infograph or something that's easy for people to understand somewhere that's easy to find. To me that would just be brilliant. I'll see what I can do to help make that happen.

[porwig]

Thanks Jenn and Niv, your kind words are greatly appreciated!

The election process leading up to our 2014 annual member meeting will hopefully change for 2015, when OSM hopes to transition to a long-term community-based membership organization.

Maybe that would be a good time to create an infographic...

[jgress-]

+1 Paul!

[NivF007]

The election process leading up to our 2014 annual member meeting will hopefully change for 2015, when OSM hopes to transition to a long-term community-based membership organization.

This is an excellent idea and I agree that the timing would be ideal, helping stakeholders and members to make more informed decisions.

Paul, if it's not too much trouble, I'd politely ask that the Governance Working Group include, as part of it's recommendations to the OSM Board, some suggestions for providing easy to find information that would help educate the community at large as to the organizational structure and scope of responsibilities of OSM, leadership groups and working groups - even if it's just a brief outline.

Thanks again,

Niv

[montano]

According to OSM NOMINATION AND ELECTION PROCESS Term limits are 2-year periods.

Board appointments will be for one 2-year period with exceptions possible if the board vitally needs specific skills (Treasurer, Legal Council). OSM may renew terms when it is determined that continuity in a role will best ensure the success of current projects.

OSM Term Renewal Requests says that regardless of how long a member has served, he/she must state their request for renewal. 5 of the 6 remaining board members have not served their initial 2 years. One has already served for 4 years.

It seems that the Class of 2010 has consistently determined the rule "exceptions possible if the board vitally needs specific skills" applied wholesale and rubber stamped any and all renewal requests. As much as I personally like Marijke, I do not understand how the board vitally needs the specific skill of Assistant Secretary, so much so, she will serve 5 years. Especially when one of the primary jobs of the Secretary and Assistant Secretary is to post the Meeting Minutes. They are currently four months out of date.

Blue denotes current member departing, orange denotes renewal request submitted.

board.jpg

Meeting Attendance should be mandatory. How difficult can it possibly be to attend a Skype chat once a month? This chart was created by reading the meeting minutes through October 2013, and marking attendance. The OSM board has a long history of appointing "friends", rubber stamping nominations, not requiring performance, and refusing to remove inactive members.

[NivF007]

@ Cindy

"exceptions possible if the board vitally needs specific skills"

According to the current by-laws (which govern these matters) no such exceptions are permitted for elections of Directors to the OSM Board.

With respect to Officers, the President, the Secretary and the Treasurer need to be elected Board Members.

5.2. CERTAIN OFFICERS TO BE DRAWN FROM THE BOARD. The President, Secretary and Treasurer shall each be chosen from among the Members of the Board. Other Officers need not be Members of the Board.

The issue we have now is that only the current Directors are Members of OSM - they have 100% of the voting power - so this may be a moot point - given that the current Directors may essentially elect whomever they see they fit - nobody else in the Joomla! Community has any say and oversight has been removed.

This changes, however, once you have a broader based membership - at which point, the elections of these positions are left to the general membership of OSM - so if this is publicly stated intention, then we have to wait to see what will be the nature of admittance for membership to the broader Joomla!/OSM Community.

As for attendance - IMO, it's not always possible to coordinate between 11-15 people - I just don't feel it's realistic that every monthly meeting could be attended by all Board Directors - but it would be a good idea to put in provisions to prevent dereliction of duty - perhaps a sensible approach would be to allow for 3 absences from monthly Board meetings per year, after which point the Director's office is terminated.

This would have to be an amendment in the by-laws, so a termination is automatically triggered.

At this point, article 4.4 would come into effect as follows

4.4. NEWLY CREATED DIRECTORSHIPS AND VACANCIES

4.4.1. Newly created Directorships resulting from an increase in the number of Directors elected, and vacancies among such Directors for any reason, may be filled by vote of a majority of the Directors then in office, regardless of their number.

4.4.2. A Director elected or appointed to fill a vacancy shall hold office until the next Annual General Meeting of the Members at which the election of Directors is in the regular order of business, and until his successor is elected or appointed and qualified.

I believe that is a sensible provision because, otherwise, in order to fill an unexpected vacancy prior to the next Annual General Meeting, a Special General Meeting would need to be called - and that entails a lot process and administrative efforts.

The full, current, by-laws are at http://www.opensourcematters.org/policies/by-laws.html.

Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing the recommendations of Governance Working Group as to how to best address these issues.

Paul, I know that you folks are hard at work with Governance Working Group - we all greatly appreciate those efforts! - can you kindly provide a ball-park time frame as to when those recommendations will be made available for public review and comment?

Best,

N

[MarijkeS]

Cindy, you're data about me is not correct.

First of all I was elected in October 2010, assuming your data about attendance is based on that too, this data is probably not correct too. In all those years I have missed just a few meetings, being ill, not having connection, or simply having other obligations (yes we do have a life too!). I also think you should consider that an international board has to deal with other problems like for instance time zones. I agree that a member should be available, but it's just not as simple as you make it sound.

Why a board needs vitally an assistant (secretary, treasurer, VP) is very simple, consider the bus factor, consider getting up to speed with the job. And, no it is not the primary job of the Assistant Secretary to post the meeting minutes.

About appointing "friends" :
When I was elected almost nobody knew me on the board. I come from a local community, I was contributing as a translator and on the JBS as a tester. I think I only knew one of the Board Directors at that time a little bit.
I hear your and others voice for more transparency and involvement from the community in our elections, and I am very willing to think about good processes for that. But the point i do not read in your (and others that voice in on that) is how do you see people elected that are more known in local communities and less in the International community. I think the way most of you see it gives them less a chance.

Oh and you first link about the 2 term is deprecated for more then a year already, you can look up the post where we voted on the term of one year back in november 2012 at the summit, to be more in compliance with the other Leadership teams.

[JacquesR]

Cindy your remarks about Marijke is uncalled for. Someone's worth on the board is not simply determined by the badge that they happen to wear. (and the Secretary and Assistant Secretary badges are not light ones either)

Marijke's been one of the more active board members and she's been an asset to OSM and the Joomla leadership.

Cindy, you write:

OSM board has a long history of appointing "friends", rubber stamping nominations, not requiring performance, and refusing to remove inactive members.

It is simply not true that OSM has a history of appointing friends. Facts are that up to early 2013 it was the Community Oversight Committee (COC) special structure who elected the Directors (and not OSM). Over time OSM played more of a role in making recommendations from nominations received, but it was still up to a vote by the COC. This structure did not report to the board, and consisted of longtime respected community members.

Renewals were also considered and approved by the COC, and not OSM.

Since then only two vacancies were filled, namely that of Treasurer and Capital lead. For both positions there was strong competition. Both elected individuals are well-known in the Joomla community, and fit well in the roles they were elected to.

Board meetings can be challenging for everyone to attend. We live in different continents and in different time-zones. Some have families or jobs that make it difficult to be at each meeting.
And yes, a few's attendance performance is poor (for whatever reason), but that's hardly different from any volunteer organization.

If you think that having to ask for a renewal each year is a simple rubberstamp, then so be it, but it's been effective. Consult the data again, and you will notice that OSM has in fact a too high turnover of people. Very few Directors over the past 7 years (that you list) even served two years.

Jacques
---
former Open Source Matters Director

[montano]

Cindy your remarks about Marijke is uncalled for. Someone's worth on the board is not simply determined by the badge that they happen to wear. (and the Secretary and Assistant Secretary badges are not light ones either)

Marijke's commitment or ability are not in question. It is the process I disagree with. There are many qualified people in the Community who would like to serve and contribute, but they cannot because the limited seats on the board are held onto. People only give them up when they've reached maximum burnout. Often leaving the project altogether. If term limits were enforced, people could leave feeling good about their contribution and move on to another area of the project.

It is simply not true that OSM has a history of appointing friends. Facts are that up to early 2013 it was the Community Oversight Committee (COC) special structure who elected the Directors (and not OSM). Over time OSM played more of a role in making recommendations from nominations received, but it was still up to a vote by the COC. This structure did not report to the board, and consisted of longtime respected community members.

Renewals were also considered and approved by the COC, and not OSM.

Jacques, I'm not making things up out of thin air. I interviewed several past board and core team/COC members. The Core Team/COC did indeed rubber stamp every nomination the board presented. Let's not rewrite history.

This word transparency that people keep throwing around does not exist in our Joomla world. If things were transparent, there would be public records of nominations and votes like any other quasi public corporation. This information is specifically excluded from the meeting minutes. Why?

Board meetings can be challenging for everyone to attend. We live in different continents and in different time-zones. Some have families or jobs that make it difficult to be at each meeting.
And yes, a few's attendance performance is poor (for whatever reason), but that's hardly different from any volunteer organization.

Yes, people have families and jobs; however, if you cannot attend one meeting per month on Skype, then give up your board membership to someone who can. This is a corporation, not a bridge club.

@Marijke this information is NOT meant to attack or criticize you in any way. I KNOW you are committed. The date was indeed wrong, but the numbers were not...according to the minutes. It shows you attended 30 of 36 meetings. I have no problem with your statistics.

The point of the exercise was to show that there are people on this current board who may not attend a meeting for 4 months straight. If you cannot perform, it is only fair to the project to resign and let someone else serve.

[montano]

My posts are not an attempt to name and shame. My feeling is that serving on the board is a thankless job and my hat's off to those who have contributed. That said, the process has been secretive and closed and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the community which the board is supposed to serve.

To illustrate my "friends" comment I give you this information:
Alice, Paul and Dianne were all leaders at JCM. Alice and Dianne are friends in real life from way back to Paris days. All three are appointed to the board in the Fall of 2010. Coincidence? I'd hazard a guess Ryan was the friend who held the door open. Just a guess.

[JacquesR]

Marijke's commitment or ability are not in question. It is the process I disagree with. There are many qualified people in the Community who would like to serve and contribute, but they cannot because the limited seats on the board are held onto. People only give them up when they've reached maximum burnout. Often leaving the project altogether. If term limits were enforced, people could leave feeling good about their contribution and move on to another area of the project.

Repeating it does not make it true. I invite you again to look at your own stats. They clearly show that most people do not stay on for their full term. There is already enough turnover without trying to force people to leave even sooner, and with what purpose?

Of the current board who's requested renewal there's only one director that's been on the board for more then 2 years, three for under 2 years, and two for less then 6 month. If the board expands to its maximum number it will mean 9 new Director and 6 current ones.

How is continuity possible of you would like an even higher/faster turnover of Directors?

Jacques, I'm not making things up out of thin air. I interviewed several past board and core team/COC members. The Core Team/COC did indeed rubber stamp every nomination the board presented. Let's not rewrite history.

You are leaving out important facts and guessing the parts you do not know, to fit your narrative.

There was never any guarantee that anyone would get elected, and I reject the notion that it was only or even mainly friends of directors who were elected.

This word transparency that people keep throwing around does not exist in our Joomla world. If things were transparent, there would be public records of nominations and votes like any other quasi public corporation. This information is specifically excluded from the meeting minutes. Why?

Why should nominees and how many votes they get be public record? To satisfy your curiosity?

I don't know how future election for Directors will look, but OSM is not a city council, and they don't hold populist elections.

Yes, people have families and jobs; however, if you cannot attend one meeting per month on Skype, then give up your board membership to someone who can. This is a corporation, not a bridge club.

Your snide remark is again out of order. You are making the false assumption that Directors' only duty is to attend one meeting a month. That is very far from the truth.

The point of the exercise was to show that there are people on this current board who may not attend a meeting for 4 months straight. If you cannot perform, it is only fair to the project to resign and let someone else serve.

And have those directors requested an extension of terms? No. So what's the point of this exercise?

Again, there' only 6 Directors possibly staying on, with a possible 9 vacant seats (if the full amount of seats are filled). All but one of these have not even served two years yet.

And you still consider this a problem?

Jacques

[JacquesR]

My posts are not an attempt to name and shame. My feeling is that serving on the board is a thankless job and my hat's off to those who have contributed. That said, the process has been secretive and closed and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the community which the board is supposed to serve.

What is this spirit of the community that the board is not serving? You again make these broad statements without foundation.

To illustrate my "friends" comment I give you this information:
Alice, Paul and Dianne were all leaders at JCM. Alice and Dianne are friends in real life from way back to Paris days. All three are appointed to the board in the Fall of 2010. Coincidence? I'd hazard a guess Ryan was the friend who held the door open. Just a guess.

Your example unfortunately does not prove your point, and you are again making wrong assumptions.

All the new Directors in that election were not added at the same time, but in part 1 and 2. Part 1 included Paul. He was up until that time serving on the CTL, and OSM was urgently looking for a new Treasurer. Paul was asked if he would join the board to fill that role. He agreed, and resigned from the CLT.

That election actually illustrates my point that the COC was not a mere rubberstamp.

This if from the blog that Ole posted for Part 1 results:

Part two of the election:

There will be an additional 2-4 new members approved early October, and the COC had wished this to be finalized in one go, but there was a need for some clarification on definitions of roles and tasks.

The community did a great job in providing some fine nominations, and the Board of Directors did perform a very thorough evaluation proces and timely delivered a shortlist of candidates for approval. We at the COC only needed a little more time to ensure the best team is set when this election is ended. Hope you all have a little more patience, and will welcome a part 2 announcement in near future. Thanks.

Dianne and Alice were both strong candidates in their own right. (and so was Marijke and Andy who all got added in Part 2 about 2 weeks after) If I recall correct, Marco (who was the TM lead at that time) nominated Dianne (who was a TM team member).

Both were nominated in recognition of the contributions they were already making, and elected for different contributions they could bring, that had nothing to do with them being friends.

Jacques

[MarijkeS]

@Marijke this information is NOT meant to attack or criticize you in any way. I KNOW you are committed. The date was indeed wrong, but the numbers were not...according to the minutes. It shows you attended 30 of 36 meetings. I have no problem with your statistics.

The point of the exercise was to show that there are people on this current board who may not attend a meeting for 4 months straight. If you cannot perform, it is only fair to the project to resign and let someone else serve.

I know you weren't attacking me, I tried to demonstrate that statistics can be read a lot of ways, and having your data wrong is even less helpful. I am not 4 years and 1 month on the board, but 3 years and 4 months. I attend most board meetings, you admit you see I am committed. So I don't see why you try to tell me I am in the way, holding a seat that would be better taken by someone else, new.

My posts are not an attempt to name and shame. My feeling is that serving on the board is a thankless job and my hat's off to those who have contributed. That said, the process has been secretive and closed and not at all in keeping with the spirit of the community which the board is supposed to serve.

To illustrate my "friends" comment I give you this information:
Alice, Paul and Dianne were all leaders at JCM. Alice and Dianne are friends in real life from way back to Paris days. All three are appointed to the board in the Fall of 2010. Coincidence? I'd hazard a guess Ryan was the friend who held the door open. Just a guess.

You conveniently are not answering on my previous post about that, I hardly knew anyone on the board. They hardly knew me. Are you gonna tell me now that was a coincidence? (just a guess) or am I the famous exception proving the rules?
You also not answer my question about how people that are more active in local communities and less vocal in the international can become a part of the board and considered in your idea about community involvement. I'd sure like to hear your ideas about that.

[AmyStephen]

Cindy - if you want to talk, I'd be happy to voice with you tomorrow. But, I gotta say, overall, since 2010-ish when Jacques and Marijke both got involved, OSM has done very well in terms of openness and community involvement. I don't share your concerns -- I'm actually glad to see the PLT and CLT start to use some of their approaches.

Again, happy to talk to you if it's helpful. Just email.

[NivF007]

Hi Jacques,

Thank you kindly for your responses and clarifications.

There are still areas which concern me - I would greatly appreciate it if perhaps you can shed some light as to the discrepancies.

On Transparency:

I agree here with Cindy, who writes:

This word transparency that people keep throwing around does not exist in our Joomla world. If things were transparent, there would be public records of nominations and votes like any other quasi public corporation. This information is specifically excluded from the meeting minutes. Why?

Your response troubles me, because not only do you acknowledge the issue, but instead of conceding, you berate the person asking a very valid question.

The OSM president admits that nominees names are not even made public for the last 3 years!!!

Should we not be curious as to who is putting themselves forward to represent OUR interests?

You responded

Why should nominees and how many votes they get be public record? To satisfy your curiosity?

I don't know how future election for Directors will look, but OSM is not a city council, and they don't hold populist elections.

What an absurd response. Is this the opinion community you serve? Exactly what steps have been taken to find out what the OSM community wants?



Has the current OSM Board even bothered to consider that YES, many of us may want to know exactly who has been nominated, and in particular which nominees have received popular support from community stakeholder, yet were turned down by and incumbent board with a stranglehold on board positions.

In my view, Cindy expresses a very legitimate concern - one that I share.

My question is why, other than for reasons of a 'self-indulgent' board, is this information kept so secretive? How does one consider that such a 'secretive' approach, combined a back-handed remark to and honest and bona fide request for transparency, can in anyway help the community at large continue to have trust in the integrity of OSM elections moving forward?

We quite simply can't. Especially with such answers.

And if there are no good answers - then I would politely and respectfully suggest that we deal with shortcoming head-on, move towards full-transparency, and not dither around any longer with very serious concerns when they pertain to the integrity of elections of the OSM board.

It's not rocket science that OSM Directors are not currently operating within the 'intent and spirit' of its by-laws - so let's fix that - it's the duty of directors to do so. If you take the seat, you take on that responsibility. If you can't handle the responsibility, then please don't take on a seat on the board when there are others willing to serve who will open up OSM to the community stakeholders.

I'm further concerned by your statements as they relate to high turnover and so many vacant seats.

Why on earth is it that are there good candidates, whom many have expressed support for, being prevented from serving on the OSM Board right now?

It's regrettable that these matters overshadow all the good that so many hardworking and well meaning volunteers contribute as Directors - but for all intents and purposes, OSM right now is a very closed, tightly held, opaque group of Directors who seemingly see having popular persons who would serve as Directors as an mere irritation.

Jacques, what clarifications can you provide that will demonstrate that I am 'dead wrong'?

(I hope I am!!!)

Thanks,

Niv

[Webdongle]

+1 NivF007

[montano]

@Marikje - my posts are really not about you other than to point out the length of your term has been over the two year limit that was post on the blog in November 2010. You were a member of the board and must have had a part in that decision. Four of the members appointed in 2010 served over the two year limit. I'm not discounting the work you or anyone else has done. This is a community of contributors, and many people want to serve but cannot because the Class of 2010 took a long time to give up their seats.

You are leaving out important facts and guessing the parts you do not know, to fit your narrative.

There was never any guarantee that anyone would get elected, and I reject the notion that it was only or even mainly friends of directors who were elected.

Am I, Jacques? Wasn't it Brad Baker who got you on the board? You've been a part of this forum only since May 2009 and were appointed to the board in February of 2010. At the time you had less than 10 forum posts, were not a member of any Working Group and had contributed no code.

cronyism.png

[montano]

We, the development team, have serious concerns about the Mambo Foundation and its relationship to the community. We believe the future of Mambo should be controlled by the demands of its users and the abilities of its developers...
... We, the community, have no voice in its government or the future direction of Mambo.

Read Andrew Eddies full post here

Replace "Mambo Foundation" with Open Source Matter and "Mambo" with Joomla.

The upcoming election to fill 6-9 seats on the Open Source Matters Board of Directors will be ENTIRELY SELF APPOINTED. I find that to be sickening and NOT in the spirit of the community.