[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Fri Apr 29 05:00:46 UTC 2016


Emilie

I have some difficulties understanding what the issue is supposed to be,
since the licence change, slightly over 3 and a half years, the OSMF is
the licensor of the OSM data and the LWG has been the primary contact
for legal questions, further for the last one and a half years who to
contact has been better documented in al relevant places, in other words
the single point of contact has been there as long as it has been
legally possible to talk with one voice. The discussion now is about
removing that (for the plebs), not adding one.

Simon


Am 29.04.2016 um 05:29 schrieb Emilie Laffray:
> Hello Kate,
>
> I agree that there is definite interest in having one legal voice for
> the foundation. I have been contacted roughly two weeks ago on that
> particular topic (a French company) and I think this would be quite
> useful for many companies that we have such a point of contact.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:simon at poole.ch>
>         *Sent: *Thursday, April 28, 2016 9:29 AM
>         *To: *osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>         <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>
>         > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>          
>
>          
>
>          
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         osmf-talk mailing list
>         osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20160429/ac0c8435/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20160429/ac0c8435/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list