[Osmf-talk] Should FOSSGIS's status be revoked now? | Re: Geolibres Local Chapter application for Argentina

Rory McCann (OSMF Board) rory.mccann at osmfoundation.org
Tue May 5 19:46:19 UTC 2020


On 05.05.20 19:07, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Therefore, the organisation requires approval by the board for new
> members to join which is similar to HOT US Inc. which requires an 2/3
> approval by the general assembly (article 3.4 of HOT Bylaws).
> 
> The application in its current form should not be approved.
Are you saying we should revoke FOSSGIS's local chapter status?

FOSSGIS e.V.'s provided 'constitution' („Satzung”), Sec 4¹;

> Über die Aufnahme in den Verein entscheidet der Vorstand. Im
> Falleeiner ablehnenden Halten des Vorstands muss die nächste 
> Mitgliederversammlung darüber entscheiden. Es müssen keine Gründe
> zur Aufnahmeverweigerung gegeben werde.
> The board of directors accepts or rejects an application of
> membership. In the case of rejection, the next general meeting must
> decide on the matter. No reasons must be given for rejecting an
> application¹
I'm in favour of large, open organizations, with large, open membership.
I am worried about small restricted groups. I think rules like HOT would
be a big problem. I think HOT is different because each existing member
can only approve 2 applications per year, and 2/3 of votes must approve you³

But to someone external to both organisations, they have the same rules.
Why aren't you applying your own standards equally? I can understand
that you know, and trust, an organisation like FOSSGIS. I do too, I'm
also a member. Can you show that the rules are different? Even in
practice? Anything? Please give me some evidence that it's actually
different.


-- 
Rory


¹ 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/b/bd/FOSSGIS_Articles_of_Association_DE.pdf
The English translation the provided: 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/7/77/FOSSGIS_Articles_of_Association_EN.pdf

² It's got a mistranslation of German to English which changes the 
meaning of the last sentence. “A reason does not have to be given..” is 
better. 😉

³ I had misread their bylaws earlier today, it's 2/3 of votes




More information about the osmf-talk mailing list