<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.07.2014 11:39, schrieb Alex
Barth:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABxUzDsMfEyC=efDgRNkBQ7FNp=9ucerUbTG27Ed0at=rRutzw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Remote voting is a good idea - especially with
AGM's in places that are far away for most.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Note that the "new" articles already allow "virtual" AGMs. But full
electronic voting would make a number of things simpler.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABxUzDsMfEyC=efDgRNkBQ7FNp=9ucerUbTG27Ed0at=rRutzw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the asset lock down - what specifically is undefined in
the license change process beyond what the CT's say? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The vote by the OSMF members: should this be a simple vote by all
(associate and regular) members, a resolution or special resolution
(which implies only regular members). Not a big deal, it just isn't
really nailed down right now which is sure to lead to strife if we
ever get so far.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABxUzDsMfEyC=efDgRNkBQ7FNp=9ucerUbTG27Ed0at=rRutzw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>From <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms">http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
> or such other free and open licence (for example,<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/">http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/</a>)
as may from time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF
membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of
active contributors.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Simon
Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Some feedback would be appreciated. Particularly on the
asset lock down<br>
question.<br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
Am 01.07.2014 20:37, schrieb Simon Poole:<br>
<div>
<div class="h5">><br>
><br>
> As I threatened last September at the AGM, we need
to address a couple<br>
> of leftovers. None of these are as pressing as the
last update, but we<br>
> might as well get them behind us as soon as
possible.<br>
><br>
> Please see the list at<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Issues_with_the_current_Articles"
target="_blank">http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Issues_with_the_current_Articles</a><br>
><br>
> Two of them are simply editorial and I assume we do
not need to discuss<br>
> them. Further I believe that there is likely
requiring a GM at least<br>
> every 18 months from a governance point of view.<br>
><br>
> Leaves two larger issues. Currently the only way
people that are not<br>
> present at the AGM can vote is via proxy, aka
nominating somebody to<br>
> vote on your behalf (with instructions). THis is
rather cumbersome to<br>
> say the least and, at least I, would suggest
complementing the mechanism<br>
> with a pure online voting system. While I haven't
discussed this with<br>
> council, adding this raises the question if it
would be possible to have<br>
> such votes outside of the context of a GM, I intend
to investigate.<br>
><br>
> The final issue that we didn't include last year
was further asset lock<br>
> downs (further there are already restrictions on
what can be done with<br>
> the assets in the case of dissolution of the
Foundation). On the one<br>
> hand these may make it easier to get more donations
(I somewhat doubt<br>
> it, likely we would need charity status for that),
on the other hand<br>
> these should be seen as a certain amount of control
on a potential rogue<br>
> board.<br>
><br>
> As I suggested last year, I believe this should
simply take the form of<br>
> a list of specific things the board cannot do
without a special<br>
> resolution passed by the membership, some
suggestions:<br>
> - dispose of any intellectual property<br>
> - transfer any intellectual property<br>
> - propose a licence change to the active
contributors (the process is<br>
> currently not defined, so we may as well do it
here)<br>
><br>
> Maybe there are some more things we would like to
add?<br>
><br>
> Simon<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> osmf-talk mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>