<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.10.2020 um 20:27 schrieb Allan
Mustard:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c835b3aa-26e8-de20-fbb9-f749265cac13@mustard.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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>
</blockquote>
<p>We probably have to agree to disagree on this, but just to make
my point clearer: <br>
</p>
<p>My definition of Foundation business would be roughly any
activity in which the Foundation is acting as a legal entity and
for which it is legally liable. For example licensing and
publishing the data, providing services to third parties,
promoting the project, organising conferences, running the OSM
social media presence and much more. Essentially the laundry list
of the WGs remits with the exception of the DWG. <br>
</p>
<p>In contrast to collecting and surveying data, tagging and so on,
which the OSMF neither participates in, nor is liable for (YMMV on
the last point) and is completely community controlled. The only
WG that operates in this space is the DWG.<br>
</p>
<p>This might be a more legalistic and clearly a wider definition
than what you are using, which would seem to be more the narrower
realm of activities concerning the formalities and obligations
arising directly from the incorporation of the OSMF which
historically have seen little community involvement.<br>
</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:c835b3aa-26e8-de20-fbb9-f749265cac13@mustard.net">
<p> </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" 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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>