[Osmf-talk] Normal OSMF membership for mappers - is it active?

[Edward Bainton]

> Hence, please don't talk down the "associate" membership, it is the best
thing we could do for member privacy.

Agreed, but equally please don't give the impression that Associate Members
have the same legal rights as Members.

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 09:59, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 06.08.21 09:48, michael spreng wrote:
> > By the way, I don't like the formulation "full" member that you chose.
> > Normal members are governed by the UK companies act, which has severe
> > privacy implications. Associate members are as fully OSMF members as the
> > Normal ones, just avoiding the companies act. Of course that has also
> > implications in slightly diminished voting capabilities: no vote on AoA
> > changes.
>
> I would like to underline that - the associate member category was not
> created so that we could have "second class members", it was created so
> that people who are more privacy-conscious could join the OSMF.
>
> The Companies Act requires that the "company" (here, the OSMF) keeps a
> register of members (here, "normal" members), with the following
> information:
>
> * real name and full address
> * date when joined
> * date when left
>
> and this list - including the full addresses and names of all members -
> must be made available "for inspection" to any other member of the OSMF
> free of charge. The OSMF must also give a *copy* of this list to anyone
> (member or non-member) who asks (but may require a fee for this).
>
> (See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/8/chapter/2 for
> details)
>
> This means that if you become a normal member, essentially your full
> name and address and when you joined become public, and this information
> is even retained after you leave the OSMF. Because this is enshrined in
> the Companies Act, it trumps any data protection legislation -
> essentially, by becoming a member of a limited company governed by the
> UK companies act, you agree to these rules and if you don't like them,
> don't become a member.
>
> If we offer free "normal" membership to mappers of whom we, until that
> point, know nothing more than their user name and email, they will still
> have to submit their personal details if they want to become a normal
> member. I don't know the penalties for falsifying this information but
> the penalties for not complying with the membership list rules are quite
> serious so I expect that in the long run the OSMF will have to take
> steps to make sure the addresses it keeps on file (and releases to
> members of the public on request) are correct. So no "ha ha I'll just
> sign up with a fake address".
>
> Hence, please don't talk down the "associate" membership, it is the best
> thing we could do for member privacy.
>
> This might of course all change - for the better or for the worse - if
> the OSMF should move to another jurisdiction altogether ;)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210806/2136525d/attachment.htm>