[Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM
reviews at pacific-rim.net
Thu Apr 18 13:39:19 UTC 2013
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frederik Ramm" <frederik at remote.org>
> To: <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 7:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on
> Revision for 2013 AGM
> On 04/17/2013 02:58 PM, Chris Fleming wrote:
>> It's an interesting question, because I think that it is important the a
>> list of members is available.
>> The act only requires the list is inspectable
> The Companies Act requires that the members' register contains the full
> residential address of each member and that this is inspectable to
> *everyone* (not only members).
> The planned new membership class would give us the chance of saying "we
> only make the name and email address available, and only to members not
> to the public"; an option that we don't have with Companies Act-type
> I am *very* much in favour of making the current list of members (of any
> membership class) available to all members *without* an opt-out option;
> the list containing at least the full real name but ideally also the
> E-Mail address.
> In my eyes this has the following advantages:
> * More transparency regarding potential ballot stuffing (the list
> wouldn't directly reveal if 20% of members are employed by the same
> company but if someone put in the necessary detective work they could
> find out - and that would be enough to deter people from attempting to
> stuff the ballot).
> * More teeth for the democratic element - if e.g. the AoA say that a
> member can do something if they have x% of members supporting the cause,
> everyone knows how many exactly the x% are, and has a chance to contact
> them and try to convince them of their cause. Not that this will happen
> often if past OSMF members' politicial activities are any indication -
> but again, *having* the mechanism already strengthens the organisation.
> * If the OSMF board only published statistics instead of the list of
> people, or if there was an "opt-out" for people to not be listed, that
> would be too easy to falsify (accidentally or intentionally) without the
> chance of detection.
> The disadvantage is that some people might refrain from joining, either
> because of privacy reasons or because they fear repercussions from their
> bosses or the legal system in their country. I think this is the price
> we must pay for transparency.
>> But we should be more expicit when people join; that the membership list
>> will be available for inspection by other memebers.
> Definitely; in the past it has been unclear what exactly the situation
> is with regard to the list of members because the Data Protection Act
> requires people's consent to their data being handed out. Does the
> Companies Act overrule the Data Protection Act or vice versa?
I believe this is covered in section 34 of the Data Protection Act . Its
not so much a case of the Companies Act "overruling" the Data Protection
Act, so much as the Data Protection Act recognising there are instances in
other legislation which require publication of certain information.
> stating that, and what, we will publish (or make available to other
> members) when people join will remove such questions.
>> I think transparency in terms of who can vote is more important that the
>> possibility of losing some memberships.
More information about the osmf-talk