[Osmf-talk] Articles of Association Update 2.0

Christoph (TheFive@OSM) thefive.osm at gmail.com
Sun Jul 27 15:33:52 UTC 2014


Hi Simon,


I do not get your asset lock down question. 

What kind of intellectual property can be disposed or transferred by the OSMF Board ?
Is that not all regulated by the license ?  I think I need a more concrete sample for that, to create
an own opinion.

If there is something possible beside the license, we should have a regulation for that.

The initiation of a license change process should be defined, may be we can do something like
the board need 10 % of active mapper to support the initiation of a license change process.
I do not know exactly what percentage is useful to have a small but not a insurmountable barrier
in starting such a process.

Christoph 


Am 23.07.2014 um 09:30 schrieb Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:

> 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/20140727/02009681/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list