<div dir="ltr">By accident I sent a reply to Michael Spreng off-list. Apt to re-post here* following Mateusz's last:<div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-im" style=""><font color="#500050">> Associate members are as fully OSMF members as the Normal ones, just avoiding the companies act. (</font><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Aug 6, 2021, 09:48 by </span><a href="mailto:osmf@m.spreng.ch" target="_blank" style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">osmf@m.spreng.ch</a>)<div style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br></div></span><div>This is wrong, I'm afraid. OSMF Members ('Members' is the term in the Articles of Assocation) have statutory rights that Associate Members do not have: eg, removing directors, calling for an audit, amending the AoA.</div><div><br></div><div>It's also not clear that an Associate Member would have standing in court if they wanted to challenge a decision of the Board: 'avoiding the Companies Act' means avoiding the benefits the Act gives members as well as the burdens.</div><div><br></div><div>I've promised Amanda a review of the articles of association and am slowly working on it: I will cover this, and my principal suggestion will be to clarify the articles so these distinctions are clearer (see art. 76, for example!). My fear is that many of us (and that includes me much of the time) are unclear what the articles and companies law actually state.</div><div><br></div><div>Whether the privacy implications of being a Member are 'severe' is a subjective question. Factually, the company has to provide a list of members and their addresses on request to anyone (in practice) who asks for it. (See <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/8/chapter/2" target="_blank">ss. 113-119 Companies Act</a>, especially 116.) I'm perfectly happy with that, while I wouldn't trust Facebook with a burner email address. (And I can see why someone else might feel exactly the opposite.)</div><div><br></div><div>*with very minor amendments</div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 11:01, Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk <<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<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>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Aug 6, 2021, 09:48 by <a href="mailto:osmf@m.spreng.ch" target="_blank">osmf@m.spreng.ch</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div>Hi Mateusz<br></div><div><br></div><div>To elaborate on Allans response: We need to update quite a few pages on<br></div><div>the <a href="http://join.osmfoundation.org" target="_blank">join.osmfoundation.org</a> website. We need to explain on the front page<br></div><div>what the differences are, that Active Contributor Normal Members are<br></div><div>still on the hook for 1£ even though the membership is free. The sub<br></div><div>pages need to be changed like the sentence you found. There has not been<br></div><div>any real progress yet, sorry.<br></div><div>We are also working on automating the sign up and renewal progress, and<br></div><div>currently a wave of Active Contributor Associate Members renewals is<br></div><div>taking a lot of time.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Thanks for info! (I am not going to complain as I have done nothing<br></div><div dir="auto">at all to help here - and sadly it is unfeasible for me to start yet<br></div><div dir="auto">another project)<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div>By the way, I don't like the formulation "full" member that you chose.<br></div><div>Normal members are governed by the UK companies act, which has severe<br></div><div>privacy implications. Associate members are as fully OSMF members as the<br></div><div>Normal ones, just avoiding the companies act. Of course that has also<br></div><div>implications in slightly diminished voting capabilities: no vote on AoA<br></div><div>changes.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I know that <br></div><div dir="auto">- members with diminished voting capabilities where setup not<br></div><div dir="auto"> to have second-class members but as workaround for privacy <br></div><div dir="auto"> issue (that depending on situation may range from extremely<br></div><div dir="auto"> serious and infeasible to annoying)<br></div><div dir="auto">- membership for mappers being restricted was resulted of <br></div><div dir="auto"> mistake that is being corrected<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nevertheless "full" seems a much better description, as <br></div><div dir="auto">Associate Members are unable to vote on AoA changes<br></div><div dir="auto">and from what I remember they are also restricted from being<br></div><div dir="auto">board members (anything else?).<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe it is more clear for native speakers but for me it is not<br></div><div dir="auto">clear at all which one of "Associate Members" and "Normal members"<br></div><div dir="auto">gives more rights (at cost of revealing personal data to basically<br></div><div dir="auto">anybody).<br></div> </div>
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div>