[Osmf-talk] Proposed v2 of the Local Chapters Agreement, hopefully leading to OSMUS as a LC

Michael Reichert osm-ml at michreichert.de
Wed Jun 24 16:21:31 UTC 2020


Hi,

Am 23.06.20 um 19:45 schrieb Rory McCann:
> So now the Board is asking the OSMF Membership. What do yous think?
> 
> Attached is:
> 
> • The current template agreement we have used so far
> • The proposed new version (since this was with OSMUS, sometimes it
> mentions that. Just ignore that)
> • A HTML diff showing the changes, so it's easy for yous to see.
> (since this was with OSMUS, some of the language is still in the diff)
> 
> NB: This is not an application from OSMUS to be a local chapter.
> If/When the OSMF adopts this agreement, OSMUS will apply to be a LC.
> Please don't provide feedback about what you think OSMUS is like
> *now*. Your time will come. We will also use this contract for all new
> LCs in the future. We will also offer existing LCs the option to
> switch their existing contract to this version.
> 
> So, what do yous think? Feedback? Comments? You can reply to this
> email on the mailing list, or (as always) contact the board
> confidentially by emailing board at osmfoundation.org.

Thank you for preparing a diff.

I have questions related to section 7.2.

7.2.: Old version:
> The Chapter agrees to support the activities of the Foundation so far
> as it is permitted to do so and to refrain from (a) engaging in any
> illegal activity; (b) engaging in any social or political activism
> which might distract from promoting the goals of the OpenStreetMap
> Foundation; and (c) engaging in any activity that might negatively
> impact the work or image of the OpenStreetMap Foundation.

New version:
> The Chapter agrees to support the activities of the Foundation so far
> as it is permitted to do so and to refrain from (a) engaging in any
> illegal activity; (b) engaging in any social or political activism
> which does not promote the goals of the OSM Foundation as expressed in
> the preamble of this agreement; and (c) engaging in any activity that
> tarnishes the reputation or the goodwill of the OpenStreetMap
> Foundation or discredits it.

What motivated OSMF/OSM US to change "might distract" to "does not
promote"? Why was subsection (c) changed? Given that I am not a native
English speaker, I would like to ask you to explain these differences in
order to be able to form my own opinion.

Best regards

Michael

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200624/ea8df58e/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list