[Osmf-talk] OSMF Membership criteria Re: Board decision on recent OSMF membership registrations
rory at technomancy.org
Tue Nov 27 07:34:54 UTC 2018
I think the OSMF Articles of Association require that anyone who turns
up (& pays) can be a member (with the board getting one shot to reject
them). So, yes that does represent the (legal?) reality of the OSMF.
As well as coming up with a policy, we'd need (I think) a resolution
& a vote, to put in these rules.
HOT doesn't have this sort of rule, and requires existing members to
vote you in as a "voting member". Some in OSM call this undemocratic,
but I think there's some advantages to this, since the current open
approach (IMO) is too vulnerable to mass sign-ups.
On 26/11/2018 01:49, Kate Chapman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:48 PM Ivo Stankov <ivo at e-stankov.com
> <mailto:ivo at e-stankov.com>> wrote:
> On 24.11.18 г. 21:08 ч., Heather Leson wrote:
> > Members are members.
> I hope this undifferentiated statement does not represent the views of
> the Board and the wider OSMF community.
> If it does, then it basically leaves the door open for any interested
> party with organizational skills and a (quite limited) budget to achieve
> membership majorities using stand-ins and sock-puppets.
> We only require for someone to be a member that they pay the membership
> fee or request a waiver and are a human. If we want membership
> requirements to be stricter or different then there needs to be a policy
> on it. I don't think we should be sticking additional requirements in
> place for specific members.
> Regarding your statement of sock-puppets the board said above "All Board
> members are against the creation of artificial OSMF
> membership accounts." As stated by Paul " I don't see any evidence that
> the signups are fake." I did a similar search prior to voting and came
> to the same conclusion.
> The other organizations with which I am involved (with the exception of
> OSM-US) do not use a model of pay to become a member to vote for the
> board as their method of membership. I think other forms of membership
> and board formation would be worth looking into at some point, but I do
> not have the feeling this view is in the majority.
More information about the osmf-talk