[Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

Mikel Maron mikel_maron at yahoo.com
Wed Aug 24 19:58:05 UTC 2011

My 2 cents is pretty much in line with what Frederik says below ... Membership is currently structured so that the Board vets
_all_ new membership requests, for multiple reasons, and this particular situation warranted more discussion. 

This raised issues with the nature of individual and corporate
        sponsored membership, and should be a key topic in the AoA
        discussion  (which takes place diligently and weekly on Mondays,
        reports to the Strategic Working Group, and regularly has 2-3
        attendants. Perhaps some of this discussion can go
        *productively* into that discussion, because we all are
        recognizing issues in the AoA). The Board had a number of
        options to consider here, and discussed it at length ... accept
        outright, reject outright, or somewhere in between. No matter
        what decision was taken, there would've been disagreement among the membership...
        that's the nature of tough decisions like this one.

This compromise to delay acceptance of these members seemed like
        one that would both satisfy the desire for Skobbler employees to
        support the OSMF, while removing any pretence that this was an
        action aimed at takeover in the election. The issue of corporate membership and individual membership should be among the top agenda items for AoA rewrite. Skobbler is entirely
        ok with this decision.


ps While we are discussing all this, and other issues, it's
        strange to note that no one has registered interest in running
        for the Board, except a troll.

== Mikel Maron ==
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

>From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
>To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees
>On 08/24/2011 08:51 AM, Steve Coast wrote:
>> I think you have to look at this in the context of the last time a
>> company paid for its employees to become members. It was not received
>> well.
>I remember vaguely.
>As I said previously, there's nothing in the current rules that forbids this kind of mass joining but at the same time there is a provision that the board has to accept membership applications so they are within their right if they don't; one could even say: If the current rules say that membership applications have to be accepted by the board then that implies that they must act with a certain diligence - otherwise, why would the rules involve the board at all?
>To all those who strongly criticize the current board action - try to put yourself into their situation. If they had simply rubber-stamped the membership applications and someone dug that out later, after the election - would that not have caused an equal number of complaints?
>I think we should use this as an example to help us shape the new AoA so that they explicitly say what is ok and what isn't. - Maybe that was the intention in the first place ;)
>osmf-talk mailing list
>osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20110824/6ace8d34/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list