[Osmf-talk] Geolibres Local Chapter application for Argentina

[Simon Poole]

I'm not aware of any of the existing LCs having any preconditions for applying for membership. If there is one, the OSNF board should undertake to rectify the situation. 

Nearly all, including the OSMF, require some formal action, or lack of it, for the membership to become effective (typically also requiring any membership fees to be paid). While that is not totally uncontroversial, see the UK LC application, it can be argued that giving the association a last ditch, emergency stop facility is a reasonable thing. It is in no way comparable to an additional formal discriminatory precondition for membership.

And no, this is not moving the goal posts at all. Before even the current LC scheme was enacted It was clear and discussed in depth that it would not work for organisations with such membership schemes, in particular HOT.

Simon

Am 5. Mai 2020 17:42:04 MESZ schrieb Rory McCann <rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org>:
>On 05/05/2020 16:59, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> there is AFAIK none that practically restricts new memberships in a
>> similar fashion.
>
>Are you sure? I looked into this as part of this application. IIRC 7 of
>
>the 8 existing LCs have “the board must approve, or may reject, new 
>member applications”. OSMF too.
>
>In theory ”An existing member must nominate you” in addition to ”the 
>board must approve you” are different rules. But if all the existing 
>members of an org refuse to support you, then the board will definitely
>
>reject you! If a board doesn't like someone, then they can keep them
>out.
>
>In *pratice* does the additionally “one member must approve you” rule 
>really change much, when like most LCs, the board can reject people? If
>
>someone would be approved by a board, then surely a board member can 
>approve them? HOT is different because each existing member can only 
>approve 2 applications per year, and 2/3 of existing members must 
>approve you¹
>
>I too like mass democratic organisations, but this limitation hasn't 
>been a problem for LCs in the past.
>
>> It seems quite inefficient to have a public local chapters
>application
>> review process without documentation of the review and discussion
>that
> > already happened non-publicly within the OSMF being available to the
> > members.
>
>I threw away the piece of paper with the scribbles, listing section 
>numbers of existing LCs. To require everyone to produce detailed
>written 
>notes of everything will drown me in paperwork, and make everything 
>*much* more inefficient.
>
>-- 
>Rory
>
>
>[¹] I don't know HOT well, but their bylaws ( 
>https://github.com/hotosm/hotosm-website/blob/gh-pages/downloads/HOT-Bylaws-2015-12-14.pdf
>
>), saw 2/3 of the entire membership (not votes) must approve new 
>members. I'm surprised it's that high.
>
>_______________________________________________
>osmf-talk mailing list
>osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200505/032d32ac/attachment.htm>