There are so many candidates this year, I need an overview
I made this table originally for myself and only later decided to share this publicly, this is why it is written perhaps a bit frank and sloppy.
Since the link to this has now even be posted to weeklyosm and the osmf mailing list, I want to make this clear: I applaud the courage, time and commitment every candidate put into the application and I trust that every candidate in describing their vision for OSM and the topics that they find important has the best intentions for OSM to move forward. I do not want that anyone of the candidates gets the impression that they are not welcome, hated or something. Whatever I wrote below should only be about the things I read in the AGM19 manifesto / questions for candidates, not about the person.
That being said, since the document has been shared publicly, please feel free to correct omissions, mistakes and misrepresentations I made in the table, also if you are a candidate yourself (but keep it short please, the sense of the table is only to provide an overview). If you add a new column, it would be great if you added the relevant information for all candidates so that it doesn't appear as if only one or a few candidates have anything to say about that topic.
|Mapping and other activities||Affliation||Related experience||Uphold on-the-ground-rule over community harmony / bad press (Crimea)||Potential Treasurer?||Hot topics|
|Allan Mustard||very active,
also in wiki
|yes, retired US diplomat||yes||respect for craft mappers
support local communities in developing countries
|Clifford Snow||super active,
also in wiki, street side photos, ML and a working group
|yes, in labour union||yes||better cooperation with companies|
|Dietmar Seifert||very super mega active,
also in forum, wiki, street side photos
|Public transport corporation Baden-Württemberg||stricter rules for big companies
stricter rules for software on osm.org
empower local chapters
transparency in membership, donations, conflict of interest
|Eugene Alvin Villar||super active,
also in wiki, HOT, github, ML and a working group
|yes, in Wikimedia Foundation||yes||support local communities in developing countries|
|Gregory Marler||very active,
also in wiki, help and SotM working group, OSM UK local chapter
|yes, various, including SotM and OSM UK board||yes||better public relations for OSM
empower working groups
|Guillaume Rischard||super active,
also in help, wiki, github and multiple working groups
|yes, in city council and local politics||YES!||yes||prevent corporate entryism, conflict of interest
support local communities in developing countries with microgrants
support consensus making (tools)
|Jinal Foflia||used to be very active, now rarely but a member of a working group, organizes local events||Grab||gender and diversity
support Asian local communities
|Michal Migurski||not really active||yes, at Code for America, OSM US||focus on how to make use of OSM
Code of Conduct
work with Facebook on clarifying license requirements
|Mikel Maron||casually active,
but active on ML, HOT, OSM US and a working group
|Mapbox||yes, at OSMF and HOT||NO! (overruled DWG decision)||continuity (4 years on the board)|
|Nuno Caldeira||very active,
also in ML and a working group
|Department of Civil Protection of a municipality on Madeira||clear rules on licensing
focus on community
|Rory McCann||very active,
also in wiki an a working group
|Geofabrik||no||gender and diversity|
|Steve Coast||not really active,
author of "The Book of OSM"
|yes||less transparency in OSMF(?), less continuity
more focus on operations, more budget
focus on collecting addresses(?!)
What is quite apparent is that all the candidates not affiliated with big companies are very active as mappers throughout and also active in the community (forum, wiki, working groups, mailing list etc.) while the candidates with an affiliation with big companies are not really active as mappers and mostly not active in the community.
This is a problem, because the board should represent the community's interest. If they are neither active as mappers nor in the community but are affiliated with a big company, well go figure whose interest they will tend to represent.
Additionally, none of the affiliated candidates gave any meaningful ("yes") response to the question whether the on-ground-rule should be upheld over "community harmony" (Crimea topic) nor on the topic of entryism / takeover of corporations (GlobalLogic topic), I think. Or perhaps I overread it. Though, since these were hot topics, it does not give me too much confidence that they will make the right decisions in the future.
I will not vote for:
- Steve Coast, as he is barely active as a mapper and not at all in the community, plus, he did not state his affiliation with TomTom, and has weirdly specific goals where the question arises why he has to be in the board for that, and he wants less transparency on the board (eh, wtf?)
- Michal Migurski, as he has almost no mapping experience, no ties to the community, just to Facebook. He acknowledges (in my understanding) that OSM should be less about the community and more about how (companies) can use OSM data. He also wants to implement a CoC, which is the wrong priority
- Mikel Maron, for overruling the DWG's decision on on-the-ground rule and not being transparent about the decision finding process, for blocking investigation in the attempted voting fraud by GlobalLogic and also not being transparent about it. Also, not clear for what he stands.
- Jinal Foflia only for the reasons stated for all the affiliated candidates and because I find there are other topics that are more important than the ones she stands for. She writes a lot, but little of substance in the manifesto / questions for candidates
My favourite candidates are:
- Guillaume Rischard. Super active as a mapper and in the community, thanks to him the GlobalLogic voting fraud scheme was uncovered - for which he received an OSM award, he'd be willing to take on the position as a treasurer, has prior experience in working groups and local politics and finally, the topics he stands for is something I can stand for as well. Additionally, he understands the current problems in the community (communication fragmentation, consensus building and iD) and has some ideas how to go forward here.
- Alan Mustard. Again, also very active as a mapper and a bit in the community, a craft mapper and very considerate in his answers to the community and his manifesto, as a retired diplomat, I think he might bring good skills in arbitration to the table and has no conflicts of interest
- Eugene Alvin Villar as he is, like the others both very active as a mapper, as a hacker and within the community, he also was active in the Wikimedia Foundation wich gives him some experience for this post
All three of my favourite candidates have one thing in common on their agenda, which is to support local communities (in developing countries)
There is also Christoph Hormanns summary, I read it and I think it is a very interesting read for anyone wanting to make a more informed choice: