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

Dudley Ibbett dudleyibbett at hotmail.com
Thu Mar 7 22:21:05 UTC 2013


Having had a quick look for AoA on the web I wouldn't say it is very common.  I have yet to find an example.  The proposal begs the question as to why would anyone want to be a member under the Act (i.e. having your address on the register) .  What would be the point?

Presumably it would be worded along the lines of the following:

"????? Members shall
not be company members of the company for the purposes of the Act
but ????? Members shall be entitled to all the privileges of
Full Membership save that:......"
If we no longer had any Full Members (possible given that they doesn't appear to be any good reason to be one with the new proposed membership class) under the Act would we have a problem with the functioning of the company? 

My other concern is we are a very small group compared with the number of people that participate in OSM.  Should we limit how they might be able to contact voting members of OSMF and lobby them in there decision with regard to votes at an AGM.  It seems we are also considering limiting peoples ability to join OSMF at short notice to attend an AGM so this could be an important issue in the event of a highly controversial motion.  This is where we do need to consider the checks and balances.  We should try and remain as "open" as possible.

Dudley


 





> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:28:21 +0100
> From: simon at poole.ch
> To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM
> 
> 
> Am 07.03.2013 01:27, schrieb Paul Norman:
> >
> >
> > Given the above, I don't see how it is possible to withhold the address of
> > people entitled to vote. Additionally, access to the register is one of the
> > checks and balances on the power of the board, and I wouldn't support such a
> > proposal if it was possible.
> Frederik has already commented on most of your points. To make it clear,
> we have been told that what we are proposing to do (create a further
> member class without a number of the legal requirements) is very common
> place and essentially the standard way of resolving the issue.
> 
> Simon
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20130307/f8fe66e7/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list