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

[Dudley Ibbett]

Fredrick,

The proposed change seems to be well reasoned.  I am however guessing that the OSMF membership hasn't gained much in numbers so the goal is still a long way off.  I doubt that the proposal will make any difference to the number of people joining OSMF but it will obviously clarify the types of membership, what information is held about members and might need to be made available to others.

On last question.  Acceptance by the board.  I presume that the board doesn't currently look at all applications for membership and in reality this is a fairly automated process.  Why not keep the capacity to stop someone from becoming a member?  The current board or a future board might need to and I cannot see that this part of the AoA is a reason for people not joining OSMF.

Regards

Dudley

> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:27:56 +0100
> From: frederik at remote.org
> To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] OSMF Articles of Association - Discussion on Revision for 2013 AGM
> 
> Dudley,
> 
> On 03/07/13 23:21, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Indeed. Being a member under the Act would only bring you additional 
> obligations without additional benefits.
> 
> We thought about suggesting a change that would automatically put *all* 
> members in the supporting member class and only make those elected to 
> the board "members under the act" (we assumed that they have to be but 
> see below). However we decided against that mainly because we feared 
> that some people might then think that being a "member under the act" 
> was something better than "supporting member", and we were keeping that 
> from them (surely because of some sinister motive). Allowing everyone to 
> choose their membership class is the easiest way to avoid such 
> misconceptions.
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Our current AoA say "No person who is not a member of the Association 
> shall in any circumstances be eligible to hold office as a member of the 
> Board"; so even the new supporting members could be board members. The 
> Companies Act itself does not, I believe, require a director to be a member.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I would like to achive that goal by increasing our membership so that 
> many diverse interests are represented among the OSMF membership; we 
> should definitely make joining easy and affordable for everyone.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130309/1e05692e/attachment.html>