[Talk-de] Hello from England
Frederik Ramm
frederik at remote.org
Do Jul 2 10:10:46 UTC 2009
Hi Nick,
(A few lines of introduction for talk-de readers who haven't followed
the issue:)
Ein bisschen Hintergrund fuer die Leser von talk-de: Die OSMF will gerne
lokale "Vertretungen" haben. Der Plan ist, dass der FOSSGIS e.V. diese
Rolle in Deutschland spielt. Hierzu ist eine Vereinbarung zwischen dem
FOSSGIS e.V. und der OSMF notwendig. Jochen und ich haben zu einem
vorlaeufigen Entwurf dieser Vereinbarung im Januar Stellung genommen.
Grundsaetzlich wuerde so eine Zusammenarbeit so aussehen, dass jeder,
der Mitglied im FOSSGIS wird, automatisch auch Mitglied der OSMF wird,
ohne dafuer extra zahlen zu muessen, und FOSSGIS zahlt dann einen
Beitrag an OSMF. Natuerlich wird nach wie vor niemand gezwungen,
irgendwo Mitglied zu sein, es geht nur darum, diese Zweiteilung "werde
ich nun Mitglied im deutschen FOSSGIS oder in der englischen OSMF"
aufzuheben - man will sich ja keine Konkurrenz machen, sondern
zusammenarbeiten.
Nick Black wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback on setting up local chapters. This is the first
> negative feedback about this particular aspect I've heard
Jochen and I have send you exactly that feedback when you asked us what
we thought of the first draft of the local chapters guidelines in
January this year. I am attaching a full copy of that e-mail to the end
of this.
(Jochen und ich haben genau diese Kritik an Nick geschickt, als wir im
Januar einen vorlaeufigen Entwurf der Vereinbarung zwischen OSMF und
"Local Chapters" bekamen. Eine Kopie der Mail von damals haengt an.)
We had made it quite clear to you that the German community will happily
enter into an agreement with OSMF and will also agree to return whatever
it gained from that agreement if cooperation should stop at a later
point in time, but that we would not hand over assets like the
openstreetmap.de domain which we have independently of OSMF.
(Wir haben klargestellt, dass die deutsche Community sicher eine
Vereinbarung mit der OSMF eingehen wuerde und dass es auch kein Problem
waere, alles, was die Community aufgrund dieser Vereinbarung erhaelt,
nach einem eventuellen Ende der Vereinbarung zurueckzugeben, aber Dinge
wie die openstreetmap.de-Domain, die wir unabhaengig von der OSMF
besitzen, wuerden wir natuerlich nicht zurueckgeben.)
> When setting up local chapters, the Foundation wanted to help local OSM
> communities represent OSM officially.
Until now, you only ever spoke of "representing OSMF", not "representing
OSM". Quote from the draft: "... 1.1 The Foundation grants the Federated
Organisation the non-exclusive right to represent the Foundation in the
designated territory".
(Bis jetzt hiess es immer "die OSMF vertreten", nicht "OSM vertreten").
> 1) Do you all generally agree that the OSM-Foundation needs to have a
> termination clause in the contract?
>
> 2) If so, what can we do to make it more acceptable?
As I said, simply make the wording so that any rights gained through the
agreement have to be returned.
(Wie gesagt, man aendere die Wortwahl dergestalt, dass nur das, was
durch die Vereinbarung hinzugewonnen wurde, zurueckgegeben wird.)
FOSSGIS e.V. already handles the bits where OSM Germany needs some
"official" representation vis-a-vis authorities etc., and once we sort
out the remaining details (I hope we'll be able to talk to you and some
other local-chapters-to-be at SOTM) FOSSGIS e.V. can also become the
OSMF local chapter for D/A/CH.
(Der FOSSGIS e.V. handhabt bereits die Vertetung des OSM-Projekts
gegenueber solchen Stellen, die eine "offizielle" Vertretung wollen, und
sobald die verbleibenden Dinge geklaert sind - ich hoffe, wir koennen da
auf der SOTM mal drueber reden - kann der FOSSGIS auch die lokale
Organisation der OSMF fuer D/A/CH werden.)
Bye
Frederik
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:15:02 +0100
From: Jochen Topf <jochen at remote.org>
To: Nick Black <nick at osmfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] OSM-Foundation Local Chapters Draft Agreement
Hi Nick,
Frederik and I looked over the local chapters draft and have some
comments. They are no "official" statement of the German FOSSGIS
organisation or anybody else, just some issues that we came up with when
we discussed the draft.
1. Who is representing whom?
We think a very fundamental issue hasn't gotten enough attention:
What is the relationship between the general OSM community, the
foundation and the local chapters. At the moment our understanding
is that the Foundation and local organisations represent the community,
each in its own way. The agreement changes this to: The Foundation
is the only one representing the community and the local chapters
represent the Foundation. This is especially important for the
motivation of the local chapters. Why should they enter into this
agreement, if they can represent the community without doing
this?
2. What are the local chapters for?
We are missing some more general discussion of what the local
chapters are for. What are they expected to do? Which jobs remain
with the Foundation? We are looking for informal guidelines,
visions, "use cases". There is some in the preamble, but this
needs to be fleshed out more. Before we can have a legal framework,
there needs to be a common cause and a common understanding what the
job of the Foundation and the local chapters is. We first need
to know how things *should* work before we can evaluate a proposed
legal document and see whether it is the best way to implement this
idea.
3. Formal representation
The draft gives the federated organisation the right to represent the
Foundation. But legally the Foundation is represented by the board.
What exactly is meant by this representation? Can the federated
organisation enter into contracts in the name of the Foundation etc?
4. Non-exclusivity
This is probably meant in a way that the Foundation can also speak
for themselves in all the territories even if there is a local
group there. But we should probably not allow more than one
federated member for the same area or at least give existing
federated members a veto right if another group wants to also
represent this territory. Also, does the Foundation want to
reserve the right to "overrule" a federated member in its area?
5. Membership
Having all members of local organisations as members of the
Foundation brings some difficulties with it. The German OSM
community decided to join the existing FOSSGIS organization.
Many members of FOSSGIS are not interested in OSM, they do
other Open Source or Open Data stuff, but not OSM. This is
especially important because of the payment of dues and because
members also have obligations and not only rights. We could
imaging there are similar situations in other countries.
Also there are details like renewing memberships, different
membership periods etc. that need to be defined properly. What
about existing members?
6. Providing services
Section 3.2 talks about "may be required...to provide...services"
This is much too vague to be in a legal document.
7. Termination
The rules for the termination are that the local group has to
give up all right on domain names etc. At the moment these rights
already belong to many local groups in the world. They did not
get them from the foundation. So why give them "back" (or sign
a document that says you will give them back in certain cases)?
These are just some comments for discussion, not an exhaustive list.
We send them to you as chairman of the working group so you can discuss
things internally. Its probably not something that should be discussed
to death on the public mailing list. Thanks for working on this issue!
Jochen
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste Talk-de