Andy Robinson (blackadder) blackadderajr at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 20 11:44:50 UTC 2009

Peter Miller wrote:
>Sent: 20 August 2009 12:37 PM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>Cc: 'Nick Black'; osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] EVERYONE: PLEASE VOTE
>On 20 Aug 2009, at 12:16, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> Sent: 20 August 2009 12:06 PM
>>> To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>>> Cc: 'Nick Black'; osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] EVERYONE: PLEASE VOTE
>>> On 20 Aug 2009, at 11:50, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>>>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>>>> Sent: 20 August 2009 11:13 AM
>>>>> To: Nick Black
>>>>> Cc: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] EVERYONE: PLEASE VOTE
>>>>> On 20 Aug 2009, at 11:05, Nick Black wrote:
>>>>>> Grant,
>>>>>> I think that the OSM-F membership list should be available for
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>> to request for their own personal use, in line with the UK
>>>>>> Companies
>>>>>> Act.
>>>>>> My understanding and the understanding of the Board is that
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the OSM-F is not Data Protection Act registered, we are tightly
>>>>>> constrained by what we can do with a membership list.  Until last
>>>>>> night I did not have access to the list.  We can only use it for
>>>>>> purposes of membership - sending membership reminders is about the
>>>>>> extent of the actions we can take.  I personally think this is sub
>>>>>> optimal, which is why I'm working with the other OSM-F Board
>>>>>> members
>>>>>> to get clarification on the DPA and other regulations.
>>>>>> I think the members should have access to the membership list and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> information that can be inferred from it, but this has to be done
>>>>>> through the proper channels.
>>>>> The Foundation is legally required to register under the Data
>>>>> Protection Act 1998 and failure to do so is a criminal offence:-
>>>>> "Notification is a statutory requirement and every organisation
>>>>> that
>>>>> processes personal information must notify the Information
>>>>> Commissioner's Office (ICO), unless they are exempt. Failure to
>>>>> notify
>>>>> is a criminal offence.
>>>> Ah, but you have not stated what the exemptions are. We know that we
>>>> do need
>>>> to register because of all the things we might need to be able to do
>>>> with
>>>> the wider OSM database (the OSM User data). The membership is a
>>>> different
>>>> matter and as Nick says, its not a requirement to notify for the
>>>> purposes of
>>>> managing an individual's membership as far as I am aware and thus
>>>> not
>>>> legally required on what we have used the data for to date, but
>>>> clearly it
>>>> is in our interests to do so for the future.
>>> A quick look at the exemptions does indeed appear to confirm that
>>> some
>>> basic stuff is allowed by not-for-profit organisations which may mean
>>> that all our directors do not 'go straight to jail' (apologies for
>>> suggesting that they might). I do hope however that we apply if we
>>> need to so that we can be transparent organisation that we all
>>> desire:-
>> Luckily I was playing monopoly recently and have a "Get out of jail
>> free"
>> card left :-)
>> +1 on the transparency and hence why notification and compliance to
>> permit
>> some use of personal data beyond the restrictions currently imposed
>> is being
>> actively evaluated and addressed.
>Good news. It would of course be useful to have board meeting minutes
>available for meetings held since 14 April 2009 so that others can see
>what the board is working on and is not working on - most of us are
>working in the dark at present and can only guess.

Thanks for pointing that out. Correcting now.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list