[Osmf-talk] Default CoI policy for working groups

[Edward Bainton]

Thanks, Tobias. Right and proper imo.

(And, with no criticism at all of anyone in an org that is basically an
all-volunteer effort, also overdue: this is a critical plank of good
governance.)

Is there a conflict of interest policy for the board itself? Excuse me if
this is common knowledge that I've missed. It seems even more important
there, since, between elections, the board is more or less all-powerful.

And is there a register of directors' interests? This used to be required
in all UK companies until relatively recently; it's good practice imo to
continue it even tho not a legal requirement, especially in a company like
the Foundation that seeks to serve public, not private interests.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2020, 20:31 Tobias Knerr, <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> the OSMF board has decided to install a default Conflict of Interest
> policy for working groups, committees, special committees and similar
> foundation bodies:
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> For groups which already have a CoI policy (I believe this includes at
> least DWG and CWG), this doesn't change anything.
>
> For other groups, please make a decision if you want to use this new
> default CoI or replace it with rules that work better for your group. Do
> let us know if you choose to implement different rules. Under the
> default, please update your member lists on the OSMF wiki by including
> any OSM-relevant affiliations. If other rules are implemented, please
> add the info on the OSMF wiki for your group.
>
> --
>
> Tobias
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201212/ebddfec8/attachment.htm>