[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Emilie Laffray emilie.laffray at gmail.com
Fri Apr 29 06:22:28 UTC 2016


Hello Simon,

I am a bit familiar about the LWG work since I was a member of the group
during the licence change. I am very happy with what the LWG is doing and I
believe that it is the right way to have legal minded people who cares
about the project. This is effectively what led to the license change in
the first place: having some legal minded and looking through at the
licence we used back then. I consider the odbl to be a great license. I had
the chance to talk to Jordan Hatcher and Benjamin Jean over the years and I
have learned one thing: I will never be a lawyer or a jurist. Even OSMF has
been making use of some jurists over the year. I even talked to some of
them as I was on the LWG.

Now, as you are probably quite familiar with how the business world works,
having a LWG will be considered not enough for many corporations. I have
worked for 2 different organizations where I got involved with the legal
aspects of the licenses and the implication about the license change. LWG
is definitely good guidance but for larger corporations, the LWG was not
seen as a viable interlocutor because lacking "credentials". That said,
having credentials doesn't necessarily make you good at what you do but
from a business perspective it will look more reassuring.

Heck, I even tend to be relatively strongly against building OSMF too much
so we don't become another Wikimedia. I am ambivalent about corporate
membership in the first place but I can see why we would want that. I have
to be pragmatic. Now, for me, the legal bit is not about creating some dual
speed lanes for legal advice at OSMF but having sold my soul to big business
worked enough in corporate environments, I can see why we would want to add
an option for the corporate minded. Now, if you decide to go with corporate
membership, I think we need to play along.

Again, for me, this is not about removing the LWG voice, this is to add a
new one. This is how I perceive it and this is why I welcome a serious
discussion on this thread about how we should go. Please note though that
while class warfare vocabulary has a certain ring to it, I think it is a
bit fallacious especially considering that we ended up voting that we want
corporate memberships. We have to be coherent. Ultimately, as I said, I am
ambivalent about the whole corporate membership bit, so if we do it, we
better do it right.

Now, if as you say, it is about removing a voice, then I will happily side
with you. I never thought I would have such a discussion in the first place
due to what I believe in in the first place.

Emilie Laffray


On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> 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> 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>
>> 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>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>osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>
>>> > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/c425a308/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list