<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Simon, et al,<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Isn't that actually a "yes" then? </blockquote>
No, it is not. The OSM project has two domains. The first domain
consists of the data, consisting of collection, entry, storage,
and uses of those data, and that domain is the working groups',
with the caveat that existential issues can and should be
escalated to the Board (and the Board does not suffer from
uneasiness with delegation, but it does feel quite strongly the
obligation to reflect community sentiment and to protect the
long-term interests of the project). The Board intercedes quite
rarely in the work of the working groups, in fact, as a review of
Board minutes would demonstrate. <br>
</p>
<p>The second domain is the administrative side, including
fundraising, budgeting, strategic planning (which we are required
by law to do), and similar tasks unrelated to the data themselves.</p>
<p>I disagree that the working groups largely conduct Foundation
business. They run the substantive side of the project, which the
Foundation "supports but does not control". The LWG deals with
uses of the data, with substantive issues related to data usage,
not with OSMF administrative issues. The OWG submits budgets for
the hardware and operating systems, decides what software may be
permitted to run on our machines, and the sysadmins on the OWG
actually operate the hardware. The CWG facilitates communications
about the data, and uses of data, and collection of data. The MWG
is the only working group that might be considered administrative,
but even it is engaged in the substantive work of expanding and
diversifying the membership in order to expand our collection of
data. <br>
</p>
<p>At any rate, the Board's intent is as I have stated it, to allow
the Board to augment the budget committee and other administrative
committees (fundraising, personnel, etc.) with expertise from
members of the community (Foundation) who are not Board members.
These would not supplant or duplicate the working groups.<br>
</p>
<p>Please PM me with your ideas on poison pills.</p>
<p>cheers,<br>
apm<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/11/2020 1:56 PM, Simon Poole
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e4f16fc3-4a43-0575-6851-ec5cb0933a3e@poole.ch">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.10.2020 um 17:01 schrieb Allan
Mustard:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:68e0daa6-6d90-3a4c-a40c-56518b7a75c9@mustard.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>Simon, et al,</p>
<p>I can answer a couple of the questions and will leave the
others for other Board members to respond to.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">Isn't that just a very roundabout way of
saying that you want to rename working group to committees and
potentially give them some more legal standing (in general for
all 4 suggestions you didn't indicate -why- you would want to
propose the change, leaving it to speculation). </blockquote>
No. The Working Groups would continue to do OSM business, i.e.,
deal with data, license, software, hardware, SOTM, etc, aka the
"fun" stuff. The committees would do OSMF (Foundation)
business, which is administrative, such as the budget, such as
strategic planning (which BTW is a legal requirement under the
Companies Act 2006), etc. Less fun but necessary. Right now,
the AoA specifies that committees may consist only of Board
members, and we're finding that we Board members could use a
little help from the community. </blockquote>
<p>Isn't that actually a "yes" then? <br>
</p>
<p>The only active working group that is not engaging solely in
OSMF business is the DWG, making the other ones "committees"
would remove some uncertainty in how far they actually speak for
and can commit the foundation. Not to mention that is might go a
bit of the way to address the uneasiness the current board has
with delegation. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:68e0daa6-6d90-3a4c-a40c-56518b7a75c9@mustard.net">
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"> Again, while I think I can make a well
educated guess at what you intend by making such a change, it
would be better to spell it out. That said, it is completely
unclear to me how you would want to differentiate between a
member voting out of their own free will in a certain way and
doing the same on orders of their employer. Essentially this
would boil down to requiring members to refrain from voting on
issues their employers have asked them to vote in a specific
way, disenfranchising them of their voting rights. </blockquote>
It's called takeover protection, with a particular eye on any
attempted hostile takeover. OSM community includes a lot of
very intelligent people, including some with good statistical
backgrounds, who can certainly draw statistical inferences if a
high percentage of employees of company X is correlated with a
number of votes for a particular resolution or candidate. The
essence is as you describe, but the point is not to
disenfranchise, per se, but rather to dissuade employers from
seeking to influence how the community votes in an organized
manner. This would not, incidentally, require an amendment to
the AoA, but rather adoption of a policy by the OSMF
membership. The Board already has the authority under the AoA
to expel members. If you have better ideas for takeover
protection, now would be a good time to propose them. </blockquote>
<p>I would prefer other poison pills (mainly an asset lock on the
OSMFs IP) as they make it unattractive to try a takeover in the
first place, instead of measures that potentially lead to long
battles in court after the fact. They just aren't practical as
long as the corporate structure and whereabouts of the OSMF are
not set in stone. <br>
</p>
<p>More generally I'm not convinced that there is really a
solution to the boards concerns at all, given that employer -
employee relationships are just one of many ways we can have
external entities trying to influence the OSMF to further their
interests. <br>
</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:68e0daa6-6d90-3a4c-a40c-56518b7a75c9@mustard.net">cheers,<br>
apm<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/11/2020 10:15 AM, Simon Poole
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a8f781cb-fbd4-1c5f-0c76-53bc8bba8a11@poole.ch"> <br>
Am 11.10.2020 um 15:53 schrieb Rory McCann (OSMF Board): <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
* that any OSMF member, not just board members, may serve
on committees; <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Isn't that just a very roundabout way of saying that you want
to rename working group to committees and potentially give
them some more legal standing (in general for all 4
suggestions you didn't indicate -why- you would want to
propose the change, leaving it to speculation). <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> * that people who get free membership
via the Active Contribution Membership system get regular
membership, not just the current associate membership; <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Doesn't that run afoul of the guarantee regular members have
to commit to? <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> * that if you vote in accordance with
orders from your employer or other authority, you aren't a
member any more and your vote doesn't count; <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again, while I think I can make a well educated guess at what
you intend by making such a change, it would be better to
spell it out. That said, it is completely unclear to me how
you would want to differentiate between a member voting out of
their own free will in a certain way and doing the same on
orders of their employer. Essentially this would boil down to
requiring members to refrain from voting on issues their
employers have asked them to vote in a specific way,
disenfranchising them of their voting rights. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> * and whether there should be a
third, non-voting class of membership, called "supporting
member". <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again "why?". <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
We are not 100% sure exactly how many we will propose, and
exactly what the wording will be. We will draft and redraft
and think and consult. Please provide feedback, praise,
curses, prayers, and hexes. If/when we have more concrete
wording, we will, naturally, post more. <br>
<br>
On the general topic of AoA changesm are there any AoA
changes you would like? I am calling for an open discussion.
🙂 <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Term limits that are actually term limits? <br>
<br>
We've already voted to not have those, so I wouldn't press you
on this. <br>
<br>
Simon <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
OSM is an open project, we should work in the open. So I am
emailing yous. <br>
<br>
As always, if you would like to publish something
anonymously, the board can consider that. Please email <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:board@osmfoundation.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">board@osmfoundation.org</a> (either
using your email address, or you could try something like <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://anonymouse.org/anonemail.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://anonymouse.org/anonemail.html</a>
but we haven't confirmed yet that that works). As always, if
you would like to contact the board privately, email <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:board@osmfoundation.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">board@osmfoundation.org</a>. As
always, this is a public message, please feel free to inform
other OSM(F) people, especially if you think they may not
have seen it. <br>
<br>
Rory <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________ <br>
osmf-talk mailing list <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a> <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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>