[Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM

David Groom 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
>
>
> Hi,
>
> 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
> members.
>
> 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 [1].  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.

David


> Clearly
> 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.
>
> +1
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/34 






More information about the osmf-talk mailing list