[Osmf-talk] AoA changes in Dec?

[Allan Mustard]

Simon, et al,

I can answer a couple of the questions and will leave the others for
other Board members to respond to.

> Isn't that just a very roundabout way of saying that you want to
> rename working group to committees and potentially give them some more
> legal standing (in general for all 4 suggestions you didn't indicate
> -why- you would want to propose the change, leaving it to speculation). 
No.  The Working Groups would continue to do OSM business, i.e., deal
with data, license, software, hardware, SOTM, etc, aka the "fun" stuff. 
The committees would do OSMF (Foundation) business, which is
administrative, such as the budget, such as strategic planning (which
BTW is a legal requirement under the Companies Act 2006), etc.  Less fun
but necessary.  Right now, the AoA specifies that committees may consist
only of Board members, and we're finding that we Board members could use
a little help from the community.

> Again, while I think I can make a well educated guess at what you
> intend by making such a change, it would be better to spell it out.
> That said, it is completely unclear to me how you would want to
> differentiate between a member voting out of their own free will in a
> certain way and doing the same on orders of their employer.
> Essentially this would boil down to requiring members to refrain from
> voting on issues their employers have asked them to vote in a specific
> way, disenfranchising them of their voting rights. 
It's called takeover protection, with a particular eye on any attempted
hostile takeover.  OSM community includes a lot of very intelligent
people, including some with good statistical backgrounds, who can
certainly draw statistical inferences if a high percentage of employees
of company X is correlated with a number of votes for a particular
resolution or candidate.  The essence is as you describe, but the point
is not to disenfranchise, per se, but rather to dissuade employers from
seeking to influence how the community votes in an organized manner.  
This would not, incidentally, require an amendment to the AoA, but
rather adoption of a policy by the OSMF membership.  The Board already
has the authority under the AoA to expel members.  If you have better
ideas for takeover protection, now would be a good time to propose them.

cheers,
apm

On 10/11/2020 10:15 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> Am 11.10.2020 um 15:53 schrieb Rory McCann (OSMF Board):
>>
>>  * that any OSMF member, not just board members, may serve on
>> committees;
>
> Isn't that just a very roundabout way of saying that you want to
> rename working group to committees and potentially give them some more
> legal standing (in general for all 4 suggestions you didn't indicate
> -why- you would want to propose the change, leaving it to speculation).
>
>>  * that people who get free membership via the Active Contribution
>> Membership system get regular membership, not just the current
>> associate membership;
>
> Doesn't that run afoul of the guarantee regular members have to commit
> to?
>
>>  * that if you vote in accordance with orders from your employer or
>> other authority,  you aren't a member any more and your vote doesn't
>> count;
>
> Again, while I think I can make a well educated guess at what you
> intend by making such a change, it would be better to spell it out.
> That said, it is completely unclear to me how you would want to
> differentiate between a member voting out of their own free will in a
> certain way and doing the same on orders of their employer.
> Essentially this would boil down to requiring members to refrain from
> voting on issues their employers have asked them to vote in a specific
> way, disenfranchising them of their voting rights.
>
>>  * and whether there should be a third, non-voting class of
>> membership, called "supporting member".
>
> Again "why?".
>
>>
>> We are not 100% sure exactly how many we will propose, and exactly
>> what the wording will be. We will draft and redraft and think and
>> consult. Please provide feedback, praise, curses, prayers, and hexes.
>> If/when we have more concrete wording, we will, naturally, post more.
>>
>> On the general topic of AoA changesm are there any AoA changes you
>> would like? I am calling for an open discussion. 🙂
>
> Term limits that are actually term limits?
>
> We've already voted to not have those, so I wouldn't press you on this.
>
> Simon
>
>
>>
>> OSM is an open project, we should work in the open. So I am emailing
>> yous.
>>
>> As always, if you would like to publish something anonymously, the
>> board can consider that. Please email board at osmfoundation.org (either
>> using your email address, or you could try something like
>> http://anonymouse.org/anonemail.html but we haven't confirmed yet
>> that that works). As always, if you would like to contact the board
>> privately, email board at osmfoundation.org. As always, this is a public
>> message, please feel free to inform other OSM(F) people, especially
>> if you think they may not have seen it.
>>
>> Rory
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201011/5bffe26e/attachment.htm>