[Talk-GB] English chapter

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Arguably, even a central England chapter is too big in some respects. We set
up mappa-mercia.org to promote and "represent" ourselves in the West
Midlands area because it's much easier to get local press and bodies
interested in working with us if we are seen as a local entity. This is
starting to bear fruit as we have been successful in engaging with
Birmingham City Council and others.

I think those that have done similar things very much on their own in their
own home towns also works well. David's work in Cambridge being a prime
example.

Thus the importance is people. These things only work and take off if
individuals alone or together want to make it happen and push it on. The
local chapter really isn't needed unless it needs support beyond its own
means. For example in our case shortly to provide an invoice to a sponsor,
which we will need to do through OSMF to channel the funds. It would be
better to do that through a local chapter in the long run and one for the UK
is more than sufficient in my view.

Thus while I'm in support of a UK chapter (which could in reality perhaps
simply be a subsidiary of the OSMF Ltd company probably) that represents UK
interests, I don't see the benefit of spitting it down further except as we
have in an informal manner as the wish arises locally.

Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-gb-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
>Sent: 18 August 2009 11:30 AM
>To: osm-gb
>Subject: [Talk-GB] English chapter
>
>I put a proposal on the wiki page
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapt
>ers
>for a central England OSM local chapter.
>
>Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss
>it here.
>
>I have no huge feelings about this. I just felt that we have a high
>density of mappers in the UK so it deserved more local representation. I
>can't say I'm that interested in running a national scale organisation,
>whereas something more regionally focussed is up my street.
>
>While Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are relatively small in
>population terms, people tend to be protective of their identity
>(rightly so, I think), so I didn't include those. Indeed there's no
>particular reason why our chapters have to divide along nationalistic
>lines, and Ireland might feel something covering the whole island might
>be appropriate. Not for me to say, and no doubt there are some delicate
>sensitivities there.
>
>What I do feel uneasy about is including (greater) London. Because it is
>so big, and has specific metropolitan features, and has a high density
>of people involved, in any sphere it tends to dominate anything to the
>detriment of outside London. I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone
>in London here, but some Londoners have been known to take a
>London-centric view of the world (I regard "the provinces" as
>pejorative). Typical journalists in the Guardian article used a London
>example - they think and breathe London.
>
>So I do think there is a case for separating London or some greater
>south-east area from the rest.
>
>But if we had the south-east and the rest of England, I'd be quite
>happy. But at the end of the day, I'm not too bothered about the whole
>thing, though I don't really want to put myself forward for something on
>the scale of the whole country, but would happily do so for something
>smaller.
>
>I'm sorry I missed the phone call yesterday. I was expecting someone to
>contact me with the number to call. But if things are changing to not
>include Foundation membership with chapter membership I think that's a
>mistake - it's hard enough to get people to join one organisation, let
>alone two.
>
>David
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb