<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>At the time the AOA were revised to include associate membership
the OSMF was advised (and the text was re-written) by UK
specialized counsel. <br>
</p>
<p>Just because we sometimes are not perfectly exact on describing
every facet of the differences between members and associate
members in informal communication is not a reason to assume that
anything is flawed or there is no understanding of the finer
points, it simply means that in normal day to day business they
are mostly irrelevant. <br>
</p>
<p>Further given that a move of the organisation is reasonably
likely I don't quite see the rationale of spending time on
revising the AoAs yet-another-time instead of getting the hell out
of the country.</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 06.08.2021 um 12:59 schrieb Edward
Bainton:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGJTS23HXNW4Kz+RVCm68Fea5FR483hm2DiDWVELMoQ9kA9J4Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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)" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</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>