JoomlaLeaks

Hmmm, that would assume that OSM board members are actually capable of feeling shame for their many failures to keep the community informed and fulfill their fiduciary duty to the organization. So far there is no evidence of that at all.

Let's see, we are in the first week of February 2013 - what have the members of OSM's board failed to do so far?

• Publish the minutes of the last three board meetings on the OSM website (November, 2012, December, 2012, and January, 2013)
• Ensure that their treasurer timely filed all required tax returns (CHAR500 and IRS990 NY Charities Bureau and IRS1120 filed with the IRS)
• Questioned the Treasurer why there hasn't been a posting of the above on the OSM website and why the NY Charities Bureau hasn't been able to post their required returns on their website if they were filed on time.
• Questioned the Treasurer and the president of OSM why there hasn't been a completed financial report for the years 2010, 2011, and so far 2012 that has been attested to as correct by both the President and the Treasurer and made available to both the community and the NY Charities Bureau as required by both OSM Bylaws and NY Law.

 For the past two plus years transparency at OSM has been mentioned in passing but unfortunately missing in reality!

I first heard this phrase from Andrew Eddie. It seemed highly appropriate for the period after Thanksgiving and continuing on through  New Year's day that is certainly full of people acting out and doing silly foolish things.

Also according to this same Wikipedia article:

 In the United States, this phrase refers to the period lasting for a few summer months typified by the emergence of frivolous news stories in the media - the slow news season.

So, how does this connect with Open Source Matters, Inc.?

No matter how many times I point out the many opportunities for OSM, they just go out and create even more! For instance, on Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 1801, Paul Orwig posts the following on Open Source Matters, Inc. - Public Mailing list:

As we discussed in today's combined leadership meeting,  from: http://opensourcematters.org/policies/by-laws.html

                ARTICLE III - DIRECTORS
                2. ELECTION AND TERM OF DIRECTORS.
                Directors will be elected according to the procedure
                described in Article IV.  Each Director's term will last
                for the term specified in her or his election or, if no
                such term is specified, for two years.

I move that the above paragraph in Article III, Section 2 of the By-laws of Open Source Matters, Inc. be changed to:

                Directors will be elected according to the procedure
                described in Article IV.  Each Director's term will last
                for the term specified in her or his election or, if no
                such term is specified, for one year. This term may be
                renewed.

This motion needs a second, and then all board members may  vote by responding in this email thread with either a +1 if  you agree with the motion, or -1 if you do not agree with the motion. Email motion threads     remain open for seven days.

            Thanks,

            paul

Ooops sorry again, it wasn't you asking OSM Board, it was all the rest of us asking you! Still wondering when you as a board are going to honor your promises. Just like Winnie The Pooh said , it looks like you stopped to think and then just forgot to start again. So I  have taken the Pooh saying to mean either (a) a reminder that one should always remain critical of one's own decisions; or (b) a slander against old people, who in the middle of thinking about something, forget..about what..they..were..oh, look: there's a cob-web on my computer monitor. I really must dust in here some day... Sorry what were you asking about?

It's downright comical! On September 29th, Alice Grevet posted in the Open Source Matters, Inc. - Public Mailing list that the minutes from the September 18th OSM Board meeting were ready for approval. Only 11 days after the meeting. Almost a record considering it took almost two months to post the last two sets of minutes. But, wouldn't you know - the OSM Board, then took took 11 days to approve the minutes. Now I understand why they want one to two months to post minutes.

Of course, it takes even longer to get through a process to change the License, Trademark, and Copyright issues that have been under discussion for a lifetime. The board seems to be frustrated itself so I wonder who or what the holdup is:

 b. License, Trademark, and Copyright Committee 09/18/2012: It is time to think about a Plan B, perhaps including some of the new people who have shown an interest, in case this process gets stalled much longer.

Sometime after 5 am CDT today July 6, 2012, Alice Grevet posted the approved board minutes for the OSM Board Meeting held on June 19, 2012. It was sloppy - not at all like Alice's previous postings for the most part. For instance, attendees were listed but absentees were not. In this case, the newly elected treasurer wasn't present and he is still not listed as a board member on OSM's own website.

Update July 10, 2010: Today OSM updated their website to publish the bio of the new treasurer - Thomas Hampton - that they announced April 20, 2012. Looks like 82 days or 2 months and 21 days is the best you can expect of this board for simple tasks. We have certainly seen much longer for even slightly more complex tasks like publishing budgets and financial reports.

Another example was that the board approved the minutes of the previous meeting. Since they didn't discuss not having a meeting in May, it was up to the reader to figure out that they were referring to the April meeting. She also clearly stated

Review of OSM board of directors motions brought to the floor via the email list, please circulate list by email in advance No motions were made.

that no motions were made via the email list since the previous meeting. Yet, we find at the end of the minutes:

I had a great time for the last three weeks ignoring my laptop,  my smart phone, and the Internet while staying in our summer place in Indiana and visiting some of our kids and grand kids just across the border in Illinois. Quite relaxing. Just got back yesterday afternoon and am catching up on the tools I recently ignored.

Imagine my surprise reading the blog from Paul Orwig about the 2012 Joint Leadership Summit Summary. Maybe it's just me? It sure seems that he was putting spin on the meeting. No details were forthcoming. Not even the number of attendees at the meeting. No information on what recommendations might have been agreed to or even if there was consensus at the meeting on any recommendations.

Good NewsYou may have not noticed but OSM published their March 20, 2012 board minutes only three days after their April 20th board meeting. That's like a record and is well appreciated by those of us who strongly believe in the public oversight clause of OSM's bylaws!

Also notable is that Altansukh Tumenjargal has attended the first three months of board meetings of 2012. Either the board made special accommodation as to the time of the board meetings or Sukh has made a special effort. Either way, it's good to see.

Bad News Discussions from Javier Gomez's group on leadership changes were supposed to be available in the public group Joomla Project Structure Working Group. You can find part of the information there but the rest that is mentioned such as the responsibility descriptions of the directors is not public even though it was asked for and promised to the public several years ago. You will also note that there is no attempt, as we move closer and closer to the summit in Germany, to make any pretense of evaluating whether such changes are even necessary or appropriate. Instead,  the discussions are entirely focused on the final structure assuming that it will be approved.

li·ar noun \ˈlī(-ə)r\ Definition of LIAR : a person who tells lies

  MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE

lie verb \ˈlī\lied ly·ing

Definition of LIE:  intransitive verb 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies

  MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE

What else would you call it?

OSM has repeatedly lied to the Joomla! Community. No, those lies were not mistakes. They intended to deceive. Let's take a look.