<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 23.07.2019 um 18:48 schrieb joost
schouppe:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7KkBKP89H4cqwr_ThxZjGRgqHuT5D=kHZvD9iQF+ax1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Talking as myself the human here, not as the Board member.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I wasn't aware that we can legally have AIs on the board :-)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7KkBKP89H4cqwr_ThxZjGRgqHuT5D=kHZvD9iQF+ax1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree that it is important for "national organizations"
to represent the entire local community, and not just one
subgroup. Currently this is checked by looking at the statutes
and asking directly through the local communication channels.
Is there anything else we could do?<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Op ma 22 jul. 2019 om 00:54
schreef Simon Poole <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch"
moz-do-not-send="true">simon@poole.ch</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">But, back to Joosts question, yes,
IMHO, we shouldn't in general be accepting organisations
that have not established their standing both by being an
outgrowth of an active OSM community in the territory in
question, and themselves having a proven track record of
being capable of actually running and financing a formally
incorporated organisation, but actually nailing that down
is difficult. For example while OSM-UK clearly was and is
a product of an existing active OSM community, the actual
formal organisation had essentially no track record at the
time it was accepted, had there been hard criteria with
respect to the organisations maturity they very well might
have had to postpone the official LC status process for a
number of years. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div>I agree with the "being an established outgrowth of an
active OSM community", but "
being capable of actually running and financing a formally
incorporated organisation" isn't really an issue, since the
Local Chapter can 'outsource' that. If I understand the wiki
correctly, OSM Belgium is the only Local Chapter where a part
of an incorporated organisation joined. This requiered both
OSM Belgium and the mother organisation Open Knowledge Belgium
to be screened, but I believe that most weight was given to
the bylaws of OSM Belgium itsefl.</div>
<div>So we don't actually need to run an incorporated
organisation. For Germany and Italy the consequence is the
same (the OSM people do not necessarily need to run an
organisation), though there it seems it is the mother
organisation that is officially the Local Chapter.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is there a preference between the Belgian and the
Italo-German model? Or is this to low a bar in both cases?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>This going off on a rather long tangent, but lets try to break it
down a bit.</p>
<p>Why do we want formal incorporation and a bit of a track record?</p>
<p>- we need something to sign the agreement with,</p>
<p>- we need somebody to be (legally) responsible for the operation
of the LC,</p>
<p>- we need some assurance that the organisation we are contracting
with is not a fly by night scam, the mafia or similar,</p>
<p>- we need to have assured ourselves that the organisation will be
following local laws and regulations,</p>
<p>- and most important: we need to have assured ourselves that the
organisation is actually interested in supporting OSM in its own
right.<br>
</p>
<p>Anything that goes wrong with the LC (and mark my words things
will go wrong), will fall back on the OSMF and while there might
not be a direct liability, we will at least suffer reputational
damage. Requiring some base line good practice things and doing
some due diligence isn't a panacea, but it will at least reduce
the likelihood of things blowing up.</p>
<p>Why shouldn't we allow, as the norm, sub-groups of existing
organisations as LCs?</p>
<p>The provisions in the template agreement that allow a
sub-organisation to join as LC were likely the most controversial
part of the whole document, they were mainly added to accommodate
local OSM groups that where already organised as a subgroup of an
organisation and that subgroup was a significant part of the
activities of the group. With other words WMF Italia and FOSSGIS.
While I wouldn't totally rule out further organisations using the
same model, in the case of Australia/Oceania that might happen,
there it is a new organisation being founded together with OSGeo,
but it should be the absolute exception and definitely not the
norm.</p>
<p>Why is this so? Because we want a LC to be all in on OSM and not
have any, even potential, conflicts of interests. <br>
</p>
<p>For example it is not inconceivable that we would have a
disagreement with the OKF. Where would that leave OSM-BE?<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7KkBKP89H4cqwr_ThxZjGRgqHuT5D=kHZvD9iQF+ax1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>For some international context: I've heard people propose
to copy this model to make it easier to join. For example, we
could have one OSM Africa organisation with individual
national organisations being a chapter within that
organisation. I don't know if that would work.</div>
<div>Alternatively, one could look for other local
organisations. But I've understood that if those are present,
they might simply not trust the OSM people enough to allow
them to become an official part of their organisation.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Why would we want to make it -easier- to join? The requirements
are already rock bottom, just go and compare with any other
similar organisation, WMF, OSGeo and so on. If we want a
"lightweight" option then clearly that should be a in the context
of informal users groups, instead of trying to fudge things in a
way that spells T R O U B L E.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7KkBKP89H4cqwr_ThxZjGRgqHuT5D=kHZvD9iQF+ax1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Is everyone still in agreement that Local Chapter can be
national organisation, subnational and supranational too?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The original concept was that LCs would be territorial, without
any further definition, it was however always on the table that
there might be thematic LCs, lets say EOF could be the thematic
chapter for humanitarian matters.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7KkBKP89H4cqwr_ThxZjGRgqHuT5D=kHZvD9iQF+ax1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What makes it hard for me to think about this, is that I'm
not really clear about the purpose of the whole construction.
For us in Belgium, there was the clear benefit of more
legitimacy as an organisation. But does the OSMF really win
much? On the other hand, if you are a more established
organisation why would you bother to join at all?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>For example you get a seat at the table of the advisory board,
you get legitimacy, you get to use the OSMF trademarks to promote
your organisation.<br>
</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAO2_g7KkBKP89H4cqwr_ThxZjGRgqHuT5D=kHZvD9iQF+ax1hQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Joost Schouppe</div>
<div dir="ltr"><a
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">OpenStreetMap</a> | <a
href="https://twitter.com/joostjakob"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Twitter</a> | <a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">LinkedIn</a> | <a
href="http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Meetup</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>