[Local-chapters] Fwd: Starting Over

[John Smith]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:11:43 +1000
Subject: Re: [Local-chapters] Starting Over
To: Ulf Möller <osm at ulfm.de>

I don't know why people are demanding so many phone calls, if points
were discussed here we wouldn't need minutes either

On 1/26/10, Ulf Möller <osm at ulfm.de> wrote:
> Thanks Serge.
>
> The board has concluded it is still too early to set up a concrete local
> chapters framework. In moving ahead I think your thoughts are very helpful.
>
> One of the things we need to think more about is how to deal with
> potential problems between the Foundation and local chapters. On the one
> hand the Foundation has to protect the integrity of its name and of the
> project. On the other hand the agreement must be balanced and not give
> one party excessive powers - clearly we'd have a problem if local
> organizations felt that they were better off not becoming a local chapter.
>
> We can't get people from America, Australia and Europe on one conference
> call, so in my opinion meeting minutes and e-mail are extremely
> important. As far as I know the plan is to schedule the next meeting for
> the morning US time/evening European time. Would that work for you?
>
> Ulf
>
>
> Serge Wroclawski schrieb:
>> I heard through the grape vine that the local chapters agreement was
>> not accepted by the OSMF board.
>>
>> I'm sure that the people who worked on the agreement are very
>> disappointed (to say the least).
>>
>> I'm hoping, though, that we can take this situation and see it as an
>> opportunity.
>>
>> A number of people on and off this list had serious concerns about the
>> agreement and the process. I count myself as one of those.
>>
>> I'm hopeful that the local chapters working group can see this
>> situation as a chance to take feedback from proto-chapters and create
>> a new agreement hand-in-hand with these groups.
>>
>> Some general thoughts on this, and I apologize in advance for this
>> mail being so long (and probably quite boring):
>>
>> 1) Selling the Local Chapters Idea
>>
>> I think one of the main issues missing from the previous LC agreement
>> was the idea that OSMF needs to "sell" to these local chapters.
>>
>> The previous agreement seemed premised on the idea that local chapters
>> would want to be associated with OSM and thus created a structure
>> around that. It reminded me a bit of a franchise agreement.
>>
>> The fundamental difference here is that we (the local chapters) are
>> not selling anything.
>>
>> Wikimedia actually distributed money to its chapters. If OSM can't do
>> the same, then it needs to provide some other tangible benefit to its
>> local chapters (and not just the use of trademarks).
>>
>> 2) Transparency
>>
>> My main complaint about the process has been the lack of transparency.
>> This agreement seemed to come out of nowhere.
>>
>> I know the term transparency can be vague, so here are some concrete
>> actions I'd like to see:
>>
>>   a) More discussions happening on this mailing list.
>>
>>   b) Draft agreements should get input from the (proto) local chapters
>> before being sent to other
>>   bodies, especially if the local chapters are going to be expected to
>> follow them.
>>
>>   c) Meeting minute should be complete and cover all reports,
>> discussions, votes, etc.
>>
>>   d) Meeting times should possibly be changed. As several of us in the
>> US have said, your
>>       current meeting time of 3am on a weekday is nearly impossible
>> for us. That ends up being
>>       8am GMT, and 9/10am in Europe. Can an alternate time be
>> proposed? I'd suggest using
>>       doodle.com to find out the times which would work best for the
>> constituent parties and
>>       working from that list. In the US we've did that and shifted our
>> meeting day accordingly
>>       after getting feedback that the meeting time was unworkable for
>> people.
>>
>> 3) Separation of Interests between Local Chapters and the OSMF
>>
>> The original LC document had all LC members being OSMF members. I
>> understand the desire to increase OSMF participation, but I'd like
>> these two issues to be separated.
>>
>> Even if there wasn't the issue of fees collection (which turned out to
>> be a huge sticking point), I think this was the catalyst for the
>> request for all membership information from the local chapter, which
>> several folks found to be a problem.
>>
>> If the LC chapter members aren't OSMF members, then this issue should go
>> away.
>>
>> 4) All requirements by local chapters need to be very specific.
>>
>> Statements such as "need to provide services" put local chapters in a
>> difficult bind. How can one agree to something when we don't know what
>> that agreement is?  Any requirements by the OSMF need to be spelled
>> out- or if that's unworkable, then procedures for working with the LC
>> need to be worked out if, eg a local chapter is involved in
>> wrongdoing.
>>
>>
>> I'm sure others on this list will have similar input, but those are
>> just my feelings.
>>
>> Thanks for reading this.
>>
>> - Serge
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Local-chapters mailing list
>> Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Local-chapters mailing list
> Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

-- 
Sent from my mobile device