Some may feel comfortable voting based solely on written responses and manifestos, but I believe that 20-30 minute unscripted audio interviews would be a valuable addition to the process. These interviews would give candidates a chance to present more nuanced positions that are difficult to convey in writing and reveal their ability to advocate for their ideas in real time.
Additionally, board service requires comfort with public interaction and scrutiny. In my opinion, reluctance to participate in a basic audio interview should be disqualifying.
What does the community think about having multiple formats for interacting with the candidates? Or are you satisfied with reading their diary pages, manifestos, and written responses to a set of approximately 20 questions?
To be clear, I am not dissatisfied with the election managers/organizers themselves. From my personal experience, they are extremely fair, and their integrity is beyond reproach.
I don’t disagree with what you say about getting a better “feel” for the candidates, but personally, I find it easy to read through written responses etc, whereas having to watch / listen to a “20 minute” submission from each of several candidates would take a lot of time.
Another concern I have with that idea is actually hearing & understanding what they are saying. I have a degree of hearing damage, & find it very difficult to understand some accents - even some British & American ones!
How about at least a set of follow-up questions restricted to clarifying/interrogating the first set of answers given by the candidates to the questions? Would this be helpful from your point of view or no?
The way things are set up now I don’t believe that there is really enough time for that, that is is would need another period in which follow up questions could be posed, and a period in which these could be answered.
I would note that I find the current system quite heavyweight and cumbersome, it would be nice if it wasn’t necessary, but experience shows that it is.
I assume, may wrong, such interviews would be done in English? Which would be a disadvantage to anybody who doesn’t speak fluent English, or have a thick non English accent.
And what about media trained persons? (Like politicians). Do we want to have such people?
Playing devil’s advocate here, what would you say to someone with the following argument:
Board members must communicate effectively in extemporaneous situations, and like it or not, English is the most widely used language for international dialogue. This isn’t about Anglocentrism; it’s about practicality. If Spanish or Arabic were the global lingua franca, I’d prioritize candidates fluent in those languages.
Given the board’s outward-facing responsibilities, particularly in securing funding, shouldn’t we ensure that at least a couple of members have a degree of rhetorical skill with the ability to advocate for OSM in real-time (in English)?
The thing is this is typically limited to 1-2 board members at best and while I would agree that the board should be the chief OSM sales people, in reality that isn’t something the board actually engages in (as in ever).
A working knowledge of English is obviously required, but thanks to Covid video conferencing has become much more accessible substantially reducing fluency requirements.
It is slightly hilarious that you made the association to actual money, but no, I was referring to general marketing of OSM at global events and the like.
Undoubtedly English language skills will help with talking to US tech companies for fundraising (that we don’t have any other source for large donations is more the problem than the solution but I digress), but these are not necessarily the same skills as those required to make a good, engaging talk on OSM to a global audience.
Well I’m happy if I helped bring a smile to your face, I get the feeling you could use more of those sometimes! I brought up money because you mentioned “chief OSM sales people” after responding to " outward-facing responsibilities, particularly in securing funding". So sure, laugh up my crazy association to that actual money.
As far as marketing goes, you’re right, it’s important. Continuing to toot my own horn, I’ve gotten some important hits recently with helping shape a NYT OpEd and getting the birthday20 website together.
I do think communications should be a skill of some, not all, of the Board. Represent the project, sell the project both as an idea and as a real place to support with resources.
It seems to me that you’re advocating for PR role. While I agree that it might be useful (although there are some problems with it of course, as with everything in life), I absolutely don’t think that it should be basic requirement for OSM Board members at all.
(In fact, I personally would prefer if most of the board were less sweet-tounged and more of direct-no-nonsense types)
So if there is a need for PR person, perhaps have board (or members?) choose one among themselves or from CWG or from somewhere else.
I personally envision having more Allan Mustard types. Persuasive and firm in manner. Not cloying/fakery. Someone who is a true believer but also has some control over their tongue. Also agree that two people on the board of this type is sufficient. Don’t need anymore than that. I also agree Mikel has proven himself a skilled advocate.
As a board member whose native language isn’t English: It requires good and clear communication in English. Not having good enough English would make working on the board extremely difficult. If your voters can’t understand you, the board members who have to work with you won’t understand you either.
