<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Sorry, I forgot an important point.<br>
<br>
Le 14/11/2011 13:43, Jean-Guilhem Cailton a écrit :
<blockquote cite="mid:4EC10CEA.6080108@arkemie.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Le 14/11/2011 12:14, Tom Chance a écrit :
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACD80NRU+cBvLb5c9VA6L=NXhuEXkfGNYiqpT8OD_nA9s-p9-A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div>But it's not unusual for free software projects, artists
collectives and other peers producing in a commons to adopt a
mixed democratic/technocratic governance structure. I used to
be a member of KDE e.V., for example, which had a mandate to
make decisions that the community then had to follow, and gave
legitimacy to technocrats who led on big technical decisions
like major API changes.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
I may have missed an episode since I joined OSM relatively recently
(less than 2 years ago).<br>
<br>
When was OSM-F given a "mandate to make decisions that the community
then had to follow"? How?<br>
<br>
If it was not, what gave it legitimacy to exclude members from the
community, for example?<br>
<br>
<br>
Jean-Guilhem<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
gpg 0x5939EAE2
</pre>
</body>
</html>