<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Simon,<div><br></div><div>thanks for explanation.</div><div><br></div><div>Yes of course, there are assets that are born implicit, and becoming of higher value</div><div>with the time. And there may be sane scenarios, in which a transfer of assets make</div><div>sense, so the Members should vote about it.</div><div><br></div><div>For me - i am a „unregular Member“ - i became member with the idea, there is no real</div><div>difference between regular and associated Members, so if it has to be stated, that associated</div><div>members have to decide, we should do this.</div><div><br></div><div>May be i have to become a regular Member too (so my alter ego and me are members), do </div><div>i have „two votes“ than ? (if this is a real topic, we should start a new thread about this,</div><div>this could be a topic, because creating unregular membership 10 or more times by one person (or company)</div><div>can't be controlled by the OMSF Board. </div><div>With this in mind, the decision, wether regular or associated Members should decide, became more</div><div>relevant.</div><div><br></div><div>Coming back to the second point: Initiation of a license change.</div><div><br></div><div>As burned childs dreads the fire we should only initiate this process if we need and want to do.</div><div><br></div><div>And of course, at the end the license change is decided by the active members. So a simple majority</div><div>of associated OSMF Members is a good alternative to my suggestion of 10%. </div><div>And as everyone has the chance, to be part of this vote (by becoming a member).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>You have asked for any ideas / suggestions. Do we need a „non vote“ period for members ?</div><div>with 363 associated Members (<a href="http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership/Statistics">http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership/Statistics</a>) in total 520 </div><div>Members, it is very easy to „buy“ a vote by generating (see above) associated members.</div><div>(no problem for CompanY X to tell 100 People to become a member and reimburse the cost by travel expenses).</div><div><br></div><div>This does not prevent a „planned“ attack, of course.</div><div><br></div><div>Another topic: Is it regulated, that - if the Members wants the board to do something - that they have the power</div><div>to do so ? Can the members enforce a AGM (or GM) to give the board any advices (like initiating a license change),</div><div>or deselect the board, if it does not handle in the interest of the OSMF ? </div><div><br></div><div>And - i had the experience in a german „Verein“ - is it regulated, what happens, if there is a selection of the</div><div>board, and there are no candidates ? In result, the old board is still in charge. This is hopefully a theoretical</div><div>question, but of interest for those who are personal responsible.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Christoph </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>Am 28.07.2014 um 21:57 schrieb Simon Poole <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch">simon@poole.ch</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br>Am 27.07.2014 17:33, schrieb Christoph (TheFive@OSM):<br><blockquote type="cite">Hi Simon,<br><br><br>I do not get your *asset lock* down question. <br><br>What kind of intellectual property can be disposed or transferred by the<br>OSMF Board ?<br>Is that not all regulated by the license ? I think I need a more<br>concrete sample for that, to create<br>an own opinion.<br></blockquote><br>Well for example the trademarks. And while the CTs limit what the OSMF<br>can do wrt distribution licence, I suspect that would be no hurdle to<br>say selling everything (naturally with all the obligations attached) to<br>your favourite big bad corporation (somebody more versed than my self<br>with UK contract law would have to step in here). Naturally there are a<br>number of non-threatening, completely sane, scenarios in which you might<br>want to move things around.<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>If there is something possible beside the license, we should have a<br>regulation for that.<br><br>The initiation of a*license change process *should be defined, may be we<br>can do something like<br>the board need 10 % of active mapper to support the initiation of a<br>license change process.<br>I do not know exactly what percentage is useful to have a small but not<br>a insurmountable barrier<br>in starting such a process.<br></blockquote><br>Requiring 10% of active mappers up front would seem to be a -very- high<br>hurdle. I was thinking more like a simple majority of the complete OSMF<br>membership (we do have to define this, because resolutions otherwise are<br>limited to regular members).<br><br>Simon<br><br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>