[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites
m at priorart.io
Tue Nov 3 04:17:42 UTC 2020
Seems like the best way to combat fraud is to pass a resolution that says
"no fraud, please" instead of one that says "no members that the board
doesn't approve of"?
Presuming that there is a delta between the fraudsters and the innocent OSM
community members who don't meet the board's requirements, aren't we
unnecessarily disenfranchising a bunch of folks who did nothing wrong?
I think we should focus on detailing the elements of a "no fraud, please"
type resolution (which appears to be the substance of the other threads)
before we disenfranchise what is probably a large contingent of users and
low volume contributors.
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:04 AM Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk <
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
> In that case, might I suggest that you frame this as a nonbinding
> resolution, for the membership to indicate support (or not) for such
> exploration, with no pre-determined outcome.
> It is entirely possible that after a more thorough legal and community
> review, either the Board or MWG might come to view such a proposal as
> legally fraught, logistically unworkable, or undesirable for some other
> reason. There is also the possibility that some emergency might require the
> Board's full attention on other matters. A legally binding resolution could
> tie up resources in suboptimal ways.
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 9:38 AM Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
>> Hi Kathleen,
>> On 02.11.20 04:17, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>> > I'm not sure though why the Board and MWG getting together to study the
>> > issue requires a resolution? Is it not already within their prerogative
>> > to investigate the issue and draft proposals?
>> You're right that drafting a proposal does not require a resolution. But
>> this first vote would allow us to gauge whether prerequisites are
>> something the membership even wants, and how broad the support is.
>> Given that there are different views on the matter even within the
>> board, I think this is valuable input. It may turn out that the
>> membership doesn't like the concept at all, in which case our time is
>> better spent working on other ideas. On the other hand, if a broad
>> majority supports it, the board + MWG would have a clear mandate to put
>> in the effort of fleshing out a full proposal.
>> In essence, this is an opportunity for the membership to let us know
>> whether we're on to something or wasting energy on a dead end.
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk