[Osmf-talk] Board decision on recent OSMF membership registrations
heatherleson at gmail.com
Sat Nov 24 20:08:34 UTC 2018
Hi Christoph thank you for your questions. The board really spent much time
discussing. Comments inline.
heatherleson at gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 8:32 PM Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
> On Saturday 24 November 2018, Peter Barth wrote:
> > A circular was created and rapidly voted on, in order for a decision
> > to be made within 7 days of the sign up; from the Articles of
> > Assocation, "the board may reject an application for membership or
> > associate membership within 7 days of receipt of the appropriate fee
> > in cleared funds"
> Interesting, thanks for informing us.
You are welcome.
> > > There had been a mass sign-up of 100 new accounts on 15.11.2018
> > > from India, most coming from one single IP address from a company
> > > "well known" to OpenStreetMap. There had been a larger amount of
> > > complaints regarding edits from that company, who provide "mapping
> > > services" to other companies.
> What is the reason for not disclosing the name of the company? Since it
> apparently was identified without any help of them i see no problem
> with disclosing that. Apart from that who did identify said company?
The important factor is that 100 members joined from India, a country with
1 BILLION people. This is exciting and I welcome them to be fully engaged
and meet the community. I hope that they can get to know each of you and be
part of the the community going forward.
Members are members. I don't think that we should focus on where they work.
I am not personally defined by my workplace.
> > Frederik Ramm, Peter Barth and Paul Norman voted in favor. Mikel
> > Maron, Martijn van Exel, Kate Chapman and Heather Leson voted
> > against.
> For clarification: Did any board member consider him or herself to be
> affected by a conflict of interest on this matter - like for example
> due to them or their employer being in a business relationship with the
> company in question?
We discussed this. There was no COI.
> > Those in favor argued that given the circumstances under which the
> > registrations happened, the memberships should be investigated and
> > decided on later. There is no assumption of ill intent.
> > Those against argued that the original complaint -- the suspicion
> > that these newly created accounts were fabricated with ill intent and
> > required further investigation-- was not supported, and thus did not
> > have a sound legal basis for delaying membership per our current
> > membership requirements.
> It seems to me these two arguments as stated are incompatible - i.e. the
> reason against is based on the assumption that the reason in favor is
> based on the assumption of ill intent - which based on your description
> is not part of the reason in favor.
Again, we really spent a full week discussing this topic. OSMF Board
members are as diverse as the constituencies of OSM. This is what makes us
special. We try to understand and meet the growing diversity.
> Note the AoA put no requirements at all on the rejection of a membership
> application. In theory the board would be free to reject an
> application just because they do not like the person applying. So the
> argument against seems to lack a solid basis.
Membership of OSMF is by payment. This is the criteria. People paid to join
and support the mandate and mission of OSMF. It seems to me that our role
is to help them learn about OSMF and welcome them.
So, truly - welcome all new members to OSMF. We need your support on all
the various facets of OSM. Please do learn about the community, meet your
colleagues and get engaged. Thank you.
> Christoph Hormann
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk