Leaks, Drips, and Spills

OSM Don't Need No Stinkin Transparency.

13 Feb 2012
Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

OSM self-proclaims “transparent” communications, however investigation reveals that the claims are obvious smokescreens to deflect the actual lack of openness and honesty. Just read through the various blogs here if you haven't as of yet. The conclusion will be apparent rather quickly.

So what transparancy have I noted in the last month from OSM? 

And, no, it is not the vote by OSM (and poorly worded by Jacques Rentzke the supposed "vote" by the Leadership Team and the Community Leadership Team) to be affiliates of OSI. The last two are not entitled to vote, only OSM can vote itself as seeking such affiliation. Perhaps it would have been better if he indicated that the LT and CLT were in agreement with the vote.

No, the transparent actions that have been occurring out in the open on the Joomla Leadership discussion group is the push by Ryan Ozimek to renew the discussions for leadership changes that occurred in San Jose in July of 2011. So, about a year from the last summit, it looks like another leadership summit is to occur at J and Beyond 2012 in Europe. It also looks like Ryan is planning to retire from the OSM board based on this discussion. Given the huge number of failures to ensure that the board was operating within its bylaws and New York Law over the past several years, Ryan's retirement should be for the best. Of course the real issue will be who gets elected in his place. I for one would not vote for either of the remaining two officers of the board. Please remind yourself about the gist of the proposed changes by reading Paul Orwig's blog and my blog - Joomla! Leadership - Bait and Switch. Nowhere in those blogs or in the current discussions do you see any consideration for the community input that has already been provided or the community input that should be sought before this next LT Summit. More money to be spent on airfare and accommodations. Amazing it can't be done by Skype.

So, what other action occurred that could be considered transparent. Oh, yeah, the December Board minutes were released on February 8th, 2012. What do they tell us. First off Altansukh Tumenjargal missed another board meeting. He has attended one of the 12 board meetings in 2011. That's an 8% attendance record. Probably not his fault if the board doesn't hold meetings convenient for his location. However, his contribution must be close to nothing and obviously provides no engagement to the rest of the board. He should be replaced with someone who can attend the meetings with some regularity. Ryan Ozimek along with the rest of the current board hold responsibility for this.

Not transparent. Now have two people plus an accountant working on the finances for OSM. Do we get financial reports monthly? No. According to Jacques Rentzke, the board, the LT and perhaps the CLT, get financial reports weekly. According to the OSM bylaws, if they create a document they must publish the document for community review. Have only seen two such reports this last year and they were partial reports. Perhaps that makes them translucent?

No IRS 1120 report for 2010. That too must be translucent.

Capital Committee report - Two inquiries about sponsorship. Imagine my surprise when the comment was made "and the other is a development sponsorship, which we aren't doing right now." (emphasis mine). Another translucent outcome. No previous discussion I could find.

And, in spite of two board secretaries and the supposed minutes review and approval by all members of the board, they still can't spell Cloud Access correctly.

Something translucent lets in light, and one can see the rough outline of things, but those things aren’t entirely visible.

  1. Translucency is a commitment to communication to your stakeholders — not an advance commitment to what that communication will contain.
  2. Translucency occurs when credibility as already been established.
  3. Translucency might be most effective when there is reason to believe that an organization’s arguments and data are rock-solid, but not persuasive.
  4. Translucency is most effective when and organization already has put in place a process and structure for bringing greater light of information through the glass.
Read 6926 times
David Huelsmann

Dave Huelsmann was Treasurer of Open Source Matters, Inc. from 2008 to July, 2010 and Joomla Forum Global Moderator from 2005 to November, 2010. Now retired, he was a senior healthcare executive who managed large and diverse clinical laboratory, radiology, electroencephalography, and centralized patient transport operations/departments in both not-for-profit and for-profit companies throughout the United States.

Dave was a Navy Corpsman who served in Vietnam while attached to Seabee battalionmcb71

Read more about Dave Huelsmann

0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-02-25 23:08
If board minutes are used as a reasonable measure of transparency, since you bring them up, then in comparing, let's say Nov 16 2009 with 21 Dec 2011 some 2 years later. In my opinion that later is more transparent and the former, a set which you would have been party to approving, is not. Spelling does not enter the equation for me. However, both are adequate in my opinion but the more recent minutes demonstrate improved transparency and communication.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-02-26 09:25
Hmmm - I must not be communicating as well as I thought.

The first measure of transparency I use is whether those minutes are even made available to the community for review in a reasonable time frame! Back in early October, 2011 only minutes through July were available. A few more days from now we will be in March. I wonder if January's minutes will get posted before then?

Also, in early October, 2011 there had been one posting of most of the financial reports and that posting occurred in May. Since then, there has been one more posting of financial reports and that was in October, 2011. So for 2011, only two postings of financial reports. Not transparent by anyone's definition. :sad:

I look at content not necessarily for transparency (though that does enter into it) but rather for whether the board is following both their own bylaws and the laws of New York. I also look to see if they are having active discussions or are simply being led like sheep. The sheep have dominated so far. :cry:
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
Add comment

Policy: Comments limited to ten per blog and are queued for review by site administrator before publishing.