# Taking stock of governance and identifying areas for improvement

## Number 1 "Most pressing/critical governance issue"

> [name=Allan] Board is unable to discern in reality what the community really wants, as most voices are silenced by loud protests from a small highly vocal group.

> [name=Guillaume]

Conversations need to happen within the community. Trust needs to be (re)built, and the right venues need to be found.

> [name=Joost]
> * limited group is contributing to the core - barriers to entry / active recruitement

> [name=Mikel]
> * Small portion of community is engaged in OSMF governance, we need to increase this by developing governance structures that include local and regional groups

> [name=Rory] Many Guidelines (organised editing, Attribution etc) are not enforced by the Foundation

> [name=Paul]
> * We need a conflict of interest policy

> [name=Tobias] We need to define membership prerequisites and transparency.

## NOTES

* Example: out of 41 conversations, 10 listed "Board not making decisions, not active in resolving issues", 1 person expressed fear that board was making decisions
* Need to do more study of what community wants from board and wants OSM to look like
* We don't have a single platform or space where all parts of the community participate
* Perceptions depend on which parts of community/where you are active
* e.g. German experience different from who allan talked to or US/UK
* Driven by linguistics/region, as well as expectations on how people talk to each other
* Different ways to get better picture of what people think
* Besides surveys, there are other ways to percolate what people think
* Local chapters can gather points of view, even though not everyone agrees
* Single communications channel/platform is likely not possible
* But..we should at least try
* OSM Africa has translater bot
* We could possibly do more things
* Could other board members do any outreach?
* We could also scope more broadly shared conversations
* Could also invite folks to board meetings
* Let's also reach out to normal mappers
* Tough to reach out to folks you don't know about
* Analyze tagging to understand who's doing the mapping [`osm-tag-csv-history`](https://github.com/rory/osm-tag-csv-history)
* Local chapters and Communities working group doing lots of outreach
*

Increasing participation and safety
* We are in bad position to analyze this. Selection bias, or "Survival of the grumpiest": need to not care about the bullshit
* Have targeted conversation about negative impact
* Is more drastic action called from with disruptive members of the community
* Do we need a CoC, clarify what is unacceptable
* Create consequence no matter what you have contributed
* Some things might not be addressable via CoC
* There are etiquette guidelines
* No one enjoys moderation
* We do not take care of culture of communication spaces
* We need different structures
* When looking at places where CoC has been implemented, it hasn't helped with problem participants
* Nothing will work without enforcement
* Civility will come from enforcement
* Graduated enforcment is an option
* Not clear what to do whan you have an issue to raise
* Know who to contact
* CoC can make some people feel less safe
*

## ACTION ITEMS
### Better understanding and community disposition on board

* Allan to share top-lines when able
* Joost to ask LCC WG for timeline on their outreach
* Could other board members do any outreach? (ask to all board members to try)
* Invite local chapters to board meetings e.g. via lottery (Mikel/Rory)

### Trust and safety for community

* Proposal: a WG? Not something the board can do, but could give structure
* Diversity and inclusivity special committee?
* Doesn't address attacks/slander
* Ask moderators to remind people about etiquette guidelines
* Summarize key points (Mikel)
* Share and get feedback from
* D&I special committee and ask for next steps and recommendations? (Mikel)
* Mailing list moderators (Paul)
* Forum moderators (Tobias)
* Help.osm.org? ()
* Wiki admins (Tobias)
* DWG (Allan)

Some prior art: https://gitlab.com/osmfoundation/board/-/issues/129

### Enforcement of policies etc

* Largely ignore (internal) FOSS policy
* Board *announcing* and then doing gentle, friendly, formal reminders noting exceptions and suggestion alternative actions (ACTION ITEM: Rory, and learn from Guillaume's efforts)
* Ideally include "escalation path" guidelines
* On organized editing guidelines, there is contact info, and DWG gets small number of complaints
* People might not know how
* Questions about whether folks are not making complaints because they don't have confidence
* Don't know if LWG see active enforcment as their role or where responsibility lies
* Membershipo: (Guillaume to ping)
* CoI (Mikel to ping MIkel)