[Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Sat Nov 28 10:34:48 UTC 2020

Am 27.11.2020 um 22:16 schrieb Rory McCann:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2020, at 22:08, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Among those was a requirement in their constitution for board members to
>> meet a certain minimum level of education. Their constitution was since
>> changed to drop this particular requirement – you can compare Article 9
>> between the versions of the document on the OSM Foundation wiki:
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/File:OSM_Uganda-Constitution_2020.pdf
>> Note that the newer version still requires skills in one of a list of
>> fields, although the list is relatively broad if it's generously
>> interpreted.
> Yeah that was a weird one. When we pointed it out them on a phone call, they went “Oh yeah, that would limit people, we'll remove it”, and they did.

This is the bit which just leaves me shaking my head. If the board had 
relevant discussions with the LC candidate, has additional information, 
had concerns that were addressed and in general has reviewed the 
application and found bits that are likely to raise questions., why on 
earth don't you point that out when announcing the start of public review?

It's both disrespectful towards this audience that will be wasting time 
on finding out things that you already know, as towards the people 
running LC candidate, that at least will be asking itself "why are we 
being criticized for points we've already explained?".

> Apparently they got a regular lawyer to draft off-the-shelf constitution, which included that requirement, and they just missed it when reviewing and it slipped it.
Important point that should have been conveyed because it indicates that 
the LC applicant is willing to adapt there AoAs to fit better to the LC 
> I've seen this before, like software projects which want to be open source, but have off the shelf “Terms of Use” which say ”We own all data you upload”. 🤦🏻‍♀️
BTW that isn't a contradiction.

In the past the community review period was directed at the -local- 
community so that it could be gauged if they were happy with being 
represented by the group running the proposed LC, not an ersatz legal 
review and LC criteria check (naturally that should be done by the 
LCCWG  instead of providing the board with more opportunity to moan 
about too much work, but that particular non-starter has already been 

There is likely quite a significant hurdle for non-organised mappers in 
Uganda, if there are even any*, to weigh in on this matter, but maybe 
-that- would be something worthwhile trying to arrange?


* what would be helpful in general in the process would be getting the 
relevant salient OSM facts about the territory in question together with 
the application, aka the "state of the map".

> Even the UK government wanted to sign a £14m contract with a ferry company whose T&Cs were copied from a pizza take away < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaborne_Freight >
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201128/696379b7/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201128/696379b7/attachment.sig>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list