<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Simon,<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I do not get your <b>asset lock</b> down question. </div><div><br></div><div>What kind of intellectual property can be disposed or transferred by the OSMF Board ?</div><div>Is that not all regulated by the license ? I think I need a more concrete sample for that, to create</div><div>an own opinion.</div><div><br></div><div>If there is something possible beside the license, we should have a regulation for that.</div><div><br></div><div>The initiation of a<b> license change process </b>should be defined, may be we can do something like</div><div>the board need 10 % of active mapper to support the initiation of a license change process.</div><div>I do not know exactly what percentage is useful to have a small but not a insurmountable barrier</div><div>in starting such a process.</div><div><br></div><div>Christoph </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>Am 23.07.2014 um 09:30 schrieb Simon Poole <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch">simon@poole.ch</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">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><blockquote type="cite"><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 href="http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Issues_with_the_current_Articles">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>_______________________________________________<br>osmf-talk mailing list<br>osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org<br>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk<br><br></blockquote><br>_______________________________________________<br>osmf-talk mailing list<br><a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>