[Osmf-talk] Draft New Corporate Membership Tiers

Emilie Laffray emilie.laffray at gmail.com
Fri Apr 29 07:11:03 UTC 2016


I apologize for some of the poor English I have used in the email. I should
proof-read myself before sending it.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Emilie Laffray <emilie.laffray at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20160429/07404152/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list