[Local-chapters] Fwd: Request to approve Local Chapter Agreement at Board Meeting

[Henk Hoff]

2010/1/22 Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 4:34 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Local Chapter working group has finalised a proposed agreement for
> > establishing federated organisations afflicated with OpenStreetMap.
> > The document maybe read here:
> > http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfpdhmxk_23htjdnjgv
>
> The US OSM working group was discussing this issue last night, and
> it's good that you've made this significant step forward, but I have a
> few concerns about the document, especially in light of not having
> seen any drafts.
>

Thank you for your comments.

About not having seen any drafts: at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters (in the History
section) is a link to the previous draft. Looking at the page, I can imagine
that this link might get by unnoticed. The proposal which is send around has
a couple of changes based on discussions during meetings and the mailing
list. (3.1 and 4.1)

And yes, you're right that this page was not mentioned in the meeting
notes....


>
> > 3.2 The Federated Organisation may be required by the Foundation to
> provide local services to
> > its members.
>
> This statement seems to be about ensuring that local chapters act in
> the best interest of their local community, so how about "The
> Federated Organization shall be required by the Foundation to act in
> the best interest of its members and the Foundation."
>
> The wording as it stands now implies a requirement to provide
> unspecified services in the future, which is a hard promise to make.
>
>
This article is related to the text in the preamble (2e paragraph) about
differences in culture and jurisdictions and spreading the workload. This
means that specific services can be best done on a local scale.
It's always hard to predict the future. So yes, we cannot specify the
services we're talking about now and I cannot give you specifics on the
impact this might have on the LC.

The text-suggestion you're making sounds good, what does it mean:
"*required* to act in the best interest"? Would this mean that if the
Foundation and the Local Chapter have a different opinion about a subject,
the Foundation can force this opinion to the Local Chapter?


> The concern I have about it is that laws regarding record keeping
> differ wildly and asking 3.4 of a country where privacy is strict may
> be either untenable or socially unacceptable. I'm not entirely sure
> how this is best addressed, but the wording may need revision in these
> cases.
>
>
This document is intended as a boilerplate agreement. It can be tweaked in
order to comply with local laws and regulations.


Cheers,
Henk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20100122/fbd72ec5/attachment.html>