[Local-chapters] Rework local chapter agreement

[Jaak Laineste (Nutiteq)]

Hello,

I have no other comments, besides same as Daniel did. Maybe remove that the translation(s) must be certified, this is special work and big cost , here we have maybe a dozen certified legal translators at all. We (or OSMF) can always do google translate, and we would provide extra info if it will be too amusing in some important points.

I'd be happy to hand over local domain to OSMF, it would reduce our local costs also by about 20EUR/year :)

Jaak @Estonia


On 17.10.2013, at 9:19, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> 
> Am 17.10.2013 02:25, schrieb Daniel Kastl:
>> 
>> 
>> In general I think the agreement is good, because it keeps everything quite simple and - speaking for the Japanese local "chapter" - there shouldn't be any issues.
>> 
>> Just let me comment a few points:
>> (4.5) OSM related domains for Japan and also SotM Asia have been registered already by OSMF Japan. I think it would be a headache to make a request to register domains to OSMF. Also some domains require a local postal address.
> There are quite a few countries that have restrictions on who/what can register a domain and obviously if something is not possible, we are not going to change it. In such cases it would be and is perfectly acceptable for the local chapter to register the domain and that is essentially the situation with nearly all existing domains used by the local chapters. The important point is that in the (unlikely) case that the local chapter ceases to be a chapter, the domains are either transferred to the OSMF or deregistered to make them available for a replacement chapter.
> 
>> 
>> (7.1) and (8.1) This is easy for English-speaking countries, but quite unpopular and time-consuming task for others (like Japan), I guess. I think some standardized form to fill in a few statistics every year should be sufficient. I think the statistics, like memberships, activities, and if the the local chapter could raise funds for example, is what the OSMF would be interested in, right?
>> That's all ...
>> Daniel
>> 
> These are the "the OSMF isn't doing it either" points :-). I would agree that likely a (simple) standardized form would be best anything else is likely simply not going to be done. The 18 months after the end of the financial year is naturally very long, but again that is mainly due to the OSMF currently presenting it's numbers 13 months after the end of its financial year (due to the timing of the AGM to be on the same date as SOTM).
> 
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Local-chapters mailing list
> Local-chapters at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/local-chapters

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20131017/7fe65b22/attachment-0001.html>