[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Heather Leson heatherleson at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 19:24:21 UTC 2016


Hey Kate and OSMF allies,

I work at a Research Institute. We have lawyers who talk with lawyers about
requirements. To me it seems like a natural that OSMF help us grow with
legal support. When my workplace make agreements, lawyers are involved
(even MOUs for partners).  Maybe the LWG could collaborate with said
lawyers for OSMF.

Board:
Thanks for all the efforts to grow OSMF.

Heather
On 28 Apr 2016 22:14, "Kate Chapman" <kate at maploser.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> The intent was not to be a slight on the LWG. I was viewing it more as
> "multiple companies have expressed interest in this, why not make some
> money for the foundation in the process?"
>
> I have been talking to various companies using OSM, but if anyone has
> additional contacts they think I should contact please let me know. It
> would be also useful if people reading this mailing list work for or own
> those companies to let us know what you think.
>
> Best,
>
> -Kate
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon & others have been doing a great job on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> It’s not clear to me that OSMF needs to offer a lawyer as a service to
>> corporate members. Certainly there is one company which appears to want
>> this and has pushed for things like this a lot, but all the others that I
>> have talked to don’t have this need.
>>
>>
>>
>> The OSM way is to try to do things bottom up, driven by what the
>> community wants to see. Or in this case perhaps what the corporate members
>> might want to see as services that would be useful. I hope we are talking
>> to not just one, but the many others on what they would love to see.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>
>> *Sent: *Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:29 AM
>> *To: *osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> *Subject: *Re: [Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to be clear, we answered over 200 inquiries to
>>
>> legal-questions at osmfoundation.org in 2015 with a typical same day
>>
>> response , the rare complicated questions which needed discussion or
>>
>> similar naturally take longer, but that wouldn't change in any future
>>
>> model. I'm fairly sure any paid service is going to be a LOT worse.
>>
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 28.04.2016 um 15:30 schrieb Tim Waters:
>>
>> > Hello,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > In the Silver tier, members get a ticket to a business workshop, and
>>
>> > in higher tiers they get tickets to a conference.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Would the workshop be within the business conference, or is it meant
>>
>> > to be the same thing?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Is the business conference envisaged as being the business day at a
>>
>> > SOTM, and as such also available for members of the public, or would
>>
>> > it be private?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Regarding the Legal Counsel - if corporate members pay for this
>>
>> > service, would there be an expectation on the foundation to provide
>>
>> > this as a perk or a paid service (e.g. 24 hours turnaround on an
>>
>> > email, 1 telephone call per month etc). If so, is it imagined that
>>
>> > there would be limits to both working group volunteers and how much
>>
>> > money the foundation pays the lawyers. Do we think that it would
>>
>> > increase or decrease the load on working group members if they have to
>>
>> > answer more corporate legal queries, and have the expectation to
>>
>> > deliver a quality level of product? Thinking further, could we have a
>>
>> > situation where volunteers get income from the Foundation from
>>
>> > answering corporate members enquiries?
>>
>> >
>>
>> > If it's not imagined to be a paid service, but rather, an additional
>>
>> > feature of the Foundation, should it be available to non corporate
>>
>> > members of the Foundation? As I'm sure many normal members would also
>>
>> > like to be able to formally clarify one or two questions from time to
>>
>> > time.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Tim
>>
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>>
>> > 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160428/d9303b71/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list