Board Meeting Minutes, February 2025
A meeting of the Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) Board was held via video call on Wednesday, 5th February 2025 from 19:00 - 19:45
Board members who dialled in: Helen Turvey (HT) (Vice Chair), Tim Hubbard (TH),
Observers: Renata Avila (RA) (CEO), Cassandra Woolford (CW) (DOF)
Apologies: Vanessa Barnett (VEB) (Chair), Ira Bolychevsky (IB), Johnny West (JW)
Welcome & review of minutes & actions [Chair]
The December minutes were not approved, as only one of the three members present was in this meeting. The approval request will be sent by email.
CEO Update [RA]
The main activity since the last meeting on the 16th December is the start of the McGovern Grant, Phase II, which is focused on the Open Data Editor tool—an exciting phase, as OKFN will pilot the tool with 10 different organisations. The organisations selected have no experience with code or working with data. They will learn data literacy as well as basic concepts around data. They will then provide feedback about the tool, which will later be used to develop it and further build governance and sustainability models. OKFN wants to use this project as a test model for future tool development. We want to develop future tools with the input from the community. We will not launch products that do not have a community attached or a sustainability strategy.
With the current political landscape and the high uncertainty around grant funding and philanthropy, we must ramp up and diversify service activities.
We will continue collaborating with groups and organisations to highlight 2024 OKFN subjects in the G20 stream. In this stream, we proposed Commons-Based Governance models not only for digital public infrastructure but also for digital public goods. These conversations gained traction and interest, and we will continue to unpack them and determine how they can be implemented in practice.
Board Discussion Topics
New political environment impact and Future Governance work for technical projects
Currently, it’s a wait-and-see situation; apart from Nepal, the Open Knowledge chapters are not affected. For Nepal, the cut of funds will impact some activities. The other chapters have diversified funding sources, meaning the restriction of funds does not have a severe impact. In the digital rights space, we will face many problems. There are many organisations that we didn’t know were funded by the US. We don’t know yet the impact on some of our clients, and there is no news at present. Many US funders are not communicating, even with their grantees, to share that they are unsure of the situation.
On a positive note, there is a space for more control and for different actors to move forward with opportunities. There is potential for realignment after 80 years of passive control by the US. It was highlighted that there is a shift through the EU / UN. While unsuccessful in building alternative tech, another option is using ‘Open Technology, ’ which could be considered part of a strategy to push against the big tech of the US.
A potential risk with US tech is that if there is a sanction, tech is shut down or frozen.
A collaboration with DPGA is needed to establish a working group about critical technical decisions that a government or civil society organisation needs to make.
Organisations need a quality cloud provider, and there are huge concerns about whether their data is backed up and the risks around exposure.
Summary: A new landscape is ahead, and we OKFN can take the opportunity to support the changes ahead.
Board and advisory composition and governance - timeline
RA suggested the type of board members that could be supportive and requested to reactivate the Advisory Board. It was proposed that a decision should be made about what type of board member OKFN needs and what the profile is. A strong suggestion is to fill a role with a profile rather than following up on suggested names of people, to ensure we fill gaps and not duplicate skills within the Board. For the advisory board, the advice offered was that the advisory board has specific roles. A successful way this can work is to ask a specific question, and the advisory board offers guidance and advice, and this could be an interesting blog post. If OKFN can act on their advice or obtain specific information from their skills and knowledge, this is an interactive and engaging way to respond to their advice.
The board and advisory board have different responsibilities and are separate in their roles. This is a discussion about an advisory round table type scenario for specific topics, and whether the title is advisors rather than advisory board.
A concrete ask to dive into and ask for a consultancy piece to address the Governance issues. A suggestion is to carry out a Governance Audit. RA to discuss further with Helen. A point was made that the board is responsible for selecting and approving new board members, but a streamlined process must be followed to ensure the time of all board members is protected, due to the heavy administrative workload of bringing new board members to the table.
Finance Update [CW]
The 2024 year-end audit is scheduled for the second week in March.
CW updated on the Forecast closing position for YE 2024.
The closing position shows that the executed spend is under budget by 25%, with a 20k smaller loss than predicted.
Actions
CW will circulate December 2024 minutes for approval by email to HT, VB and JW.
RA will update the Board on the progress of the DGPA working group.
RA to meet with HT to discuss Governance and next steps
Doodle poll for F2F meeting in May