[Osmf-talk] Articles of Association Update 2.0

Alex Barth alex at mapbox.com
Wed Jul 23 09:39:31 UTC 2014


Remote voting is a good idea - especially with AGM's in places that are far
away for most.

On the asset lock down - what specifically is undefined in the license
change process beyond what the CT's say?

>From http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

> or such other free and open licence (for example,
http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/) as may from time to time be chosen by a
vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a 2/3 majority vote of
active contributors.


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> Some feedback would be appreciated. Particularly on the asset lock down
> question.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 01.07.2014 20:37, schrieb Simon Poole:
> >
> >
> > As I threatened last September at the AGM, we need to address a couple
> > of leftovers. None of these are as pressing as the last update, but we
> > might as well get them behind us as soon as possible.
> >
> > Please see the list at
> > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Issues_with_the_current_Articles
> >
> > Two of them are simply editorial and I assume we do not need to discuss
> > them. Further I believe that there is likely requiring a GM at least
> > every 18 months from a governance point of view.
> >
> > Leaves two larger issues. Currently the only way people that are not
> > present at the AGM can vote is via proxy, aka nominating somebody to
> > vote on your behalf (with instructions). THis is rather cumbersome to
> > say the least and, at least I, would suggest complementing the mechanism
> > with a pure online voting system. While I haven't discussed this with
> > council, adding this raises the question if it would be possible to have
> > such votes outside of the context of a GM, I intend to investigate.
> >
> > The final issue that we didn't include last year was further asset lock
> > downs (further there are already restrictions on what can be done with
> > the assets in the case of dissolution of the Foundation). On the one
> > hand these may make it easier to get more donations (I somewhat doubt
> > it, likely we would need charity status for that), on the other hand
> > these should be seen as a certain amount of control on a potential rogue
> > board.
> >
> > As I suggested last year, I believe this should simply take the form of
> > a list of specific things the board cannot do without a special
> > resolution passed by the membership, some suggestions:
> > - dispose of any intellectual property
> > - transfer any intellectual property
> > - propose a licence change to the active contributors (the process is
> > currently not defined, so we may as well do it here)
> >
> > Maybe there are some more things we would like to add?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20140723/6413a73f/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list