[Osmf-talk] AoA changes in Dec?
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Sun Oct 11 19:50:20 UTC 2020
Am 11.10.2020 um 20:27 schrieb Allan Mustard:
>
> I disagree that the working groups largely conduct Foundation
> business. They run the substantive side of the project, which the
> Foundation "supports but does not control". The LWG deals with uses
> of the data, with substantive issues related to data usage, not with
> OSMF administrative issues. The OWG submits budgets for the hardware
> and operating systems, decides what software may be permitted to run
> on our machines, and the sysadmins on the OWG actually operate the
> hardware. The CWG facilitates communications about the data, and uses
> of data, and collection of data. The MWG is the only working group
> that might be considered administrative, but even it is engaged in the
> substantive work of expanding and diversifying the membership in order
> to expand our collection of data.
>
We probably have to agree to disagree on this, but just to make my point
clearer:
My definition of Foundation business would be roughly any activity in
which the Foundation is acting as a legal entity and for which it is
legally liable. For example licensing and publishing the data, providing
services to third parties, promoting the project, organising
conferences, running the OSM social media presence and much more.
Essentially the laundry list of the WGs remits with the exception of
the DWG.
In contrast to collecting and surveying data, tagging and so on, which
the OSMF neither participates in, nor is liable for (YMMV on the last
point) and is completely community controlled. The only WG that operates
in this space is the DWG.
This might be a more legalistic and clearly a wider definition than what
you are using, which would seem to be more the narrower realm of
activities concerning the formalities and obligations arising directly
from the incorporation of the OSMF which historically have seen little
community involvement.
Simon
> At any rate, the Board's intent is as I have stated it, to allow the
> Board to augment the budget committee and other administrative
> committees (fundraising, personnel, etc.) with expertise from members
> of the community (Foundation) who are not Board members. These would
> not supplant or duplicate the working groups.
>
> Please PM me with your ideas on poison pills.
>
> cheers,
> apm
>
> On 10/11/2020 1:56 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 11.10.2020 um 17:01 schrieb 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.
>>
>> Isn't that actually a "yes" then?
>>
>> The only active working group that is not engaging solely in OSMF
>> business is the DWG, making the other ones "committees" would remove
>> some uncertainty in how far they actually speak for and can commit
>> the foundation. Not to mention that is might go a bit of the way to
>> address the uneasiness the current board has with delegation.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I would prefer other poison pills (mainly an asset lock on the OSMFs
>> IP) as they make it unattractive to try a takeover in the first
>> place, instead of measures that potentially lead to long battles in
>> court after the fact. They just aren't practical as long as the
>> corporate structure and whereabouts of the OSMF are not set in stone.
>>
>> More generally I'm not convinced that there is really a solution to
>> the boards concerns at all, given that employer - employee
>> relationships are just one of many ways we can have external entities
>> trying to influence the OSMF to further their interests.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20201011/89215a4f/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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/20201011/89215a4f/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/20201011/89215a4f/attachment.sig>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list