[Osmf-talk] Board Cohesion/Confidentiality

Andy Robinson blackadderajr at gmail.com
Fri Oct 5 14:14:14 UTC 2012

As far as I was aware, company Directors have a duty of confidentiality to
the company as defined in the 2006 Act (which is based on case law).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Coast [mailto:steve at asklater.com]
> Sent: 05 October 2012 14:56
> To: Kate Chapman
> Cc: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Board Cohesion/Confidentiality
> Hi
> The membership has voted in member(s) to the board who don't think the
> board should exist, or at the least do anything at all.
> That at minimum makes the job of all the other board members very
> What you're seeing is only one symptom but there are others. As you allude
> to, if BigCorp now wants to bring something confidential to the board like
> "Hey Founder Steve, we'd like to bounce the idea of us doing X with OSM
> the board but we don't want it leaked to our competition as it's just an
> then, as an example, it is now very difficult for me to do so since some
> member(s) don't believe confidentiality should exist and might make a
> blog post about it. Since I don't want to damage my reputation, it is now
> for me to pass things on to the board.
> Since the membership voted in member(s) with this point of view I think
> board has to work with it, but I honestly don't think much will be
> Steve
> On Oct 5, 2012, at 3:18 AM, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I wanted to bring up the recent discussion between Frederik(1) and
> > Oliver(2) on their perspective blogs. Honestly I find this method of
> > communication to be a bit silly. I question the rationale of members
> > of the OSMF board not bringing this sort of disagreement to the OSMF
> > membership or the OSM community through our mailing lists first. The
> > board is supposed to represent the interests of the OpenStreetMap
> > project.
> >
> > Meaning often I attend meetings or meet with groups interested in
> > contributing to OpenStreetMap such as government, universities, or
> > humanitarian organizations. Occasionally one of them will ask me about
> > a blog post or other communication within the OSM community and say
> > "is that really what people want/think?" These posts of course are
> > individuals from the community the same as the posts from Oliver and
> > Frederik. My response is along the lines of "well OSM is a large
> > informal internet project, so there are many differing views." The
> > difference in this case however is the nature of these posts. Oliver
> > and Frederik are specific stating there status on the OSMF board and
> > discussion the problems. If I was a large organization or a company
> > about to launch product I would be hesitant to discuss at all with the
> > OSMF at this point for free of information being released that I did
> > not intend.
> >
> > That said, I think we should be having a discussion as to what the
> > role is of the board. Personally I'm on the side of having a certain
> > level of confidentiality. To be honest in HOT we don't disclose all
> > information immediately and we do have agreements with some
> > organizations that when we communicate publicly we will run it by each
> > other first. We probably allow more leeway with this than I would want
> > within OSMF, because of the humanitarian nature of our work. I
> > wouldn't want the OSMF to have a long term agreement with an
> > organization where they would check each others communications. I
> > think it is reasonable though if we want to have a free map of the
> > entire world that we be pragmatic and realize sometimes not everyone
> > is going to be allowed to know everything all of the time.
> >
> > I would like to see better communication from the board in terms of
> > minutes and other updates though. The thought process should be
> > initially towards open at all times and an exception would be when
> > things aren't publicly shared, versus a blanket confidentiality rule.
> > The first step of this would be for me not to discover issues from
> > @FakeSteveC.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Kate
> >
> > (1) http://osm.gryph.de/2012/10/transparency-and-confidentiality/
> > (2)
> > http://www.abalakov.com/openstreetmap-an-inhomogeneous-new-
> osmf-board
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2677 / Virus Database: 2591/5809 - Release Date: 10/04/12

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list