[Local-chapters] Rework local chapter agreement

[Michael Collinson]

Arbitration organisations exist but have unfortunately drifted towards 
being a lucrative business. So perhaps some ingenuity might be built 
around the basic principle:

1) Each party picks a reputable (semi) independent person.

2) Those persons agree that each other are not loonies and capable of 
rational discussion.

3) They then pick a third person and then either come to a complete 
consensus or at least a 2:1 decision.

Perhaps just formalising the above might safe enough and flexible 
regarding cost?  I dimly remember international contracts in the early 
'90s using such wording before arbitration became formalised.

I suggest that the most straight-forward approach right now is to leave 
the text as but flag as a question for formal legal review:

"We are conscious of cost. 1) Can we reasonably safely drop "in person" 
2) If so, what in your opinion would be the rough cost effect of 
stipulating a "certified" mediator?"

Mike



On 18/10/2013 08:15, Simon Poole wrote:
> 12, true in person will be expensive, I don't have a strong feeling 
> about that, anybody else?
>
> Simon
>
> Am 17.10.2013 20:21, schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar:
>> Some comment
snip
>>
>> (12) "to be conducted in person before a certified mediator agreed by 
>> the parties". This seems expensive since an in-person mediation is 
>> required. Who will pay for such mediation? Unlike in an actual suit 
>> where the judge/jury may award legal fees to one party, there seems 
>> to be no cost provision for mediation.
>>
>> Otherwise, the document is quite good.
>>
>> Eugene
>> (OSMPH)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Simon Poole <simon at osmfoundation.org 
>> <mailto:simon at osmfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     As agreed at the last LCWG meeting, I've reworked the draft
>>     agreement to
>>     contain most of the changes I proposed, see
>>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Agreement
>>
>>     Please review, comment and discuss. The document should not be
>>     considered the final legal text and insofar you should focus more
>>     on the
>>     general contents and not on specific wording, it will go through a
>>     formal legal review before being finalized.
>>
>>     Simon
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/local-chapters/attachments/20131024/4d2daa06/attachment.html>