[Talk-us] Local Chapters Agreement

Ian Dees ian.dees at gmail.com
Thu Oct 25 20:23:17 GMT 2012


TEST POST PLEASE IGNORE :)

I accidentally released from moderation this after Mikel had already
re-posted it after figuring subscription stuff out.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> First post here? I just joined OSM US before attending SOTM-US. So hi.
>
> I heard that the OSM US Board was deliberating the topic of Local
> Chapters. I know a little of the history of Local Chapters from my (now
> over) time on the OSM Foundation Board (I'm still on the OSMF "Management
> Team"). It's been a long process and I think it's a very important topic
> for OSM US engage with it. Mike Collinson is intended to revive the process
> and discussion, and he's quite a steady hand within the OSMF.
>
> For specific reasons why OSM-US should care, a couple concrete things off
> the top of my head are trademarks and promotion. OSM Foundation holds the
> trademarks, like OpenStreetMap and the logo. The promotion space for events
> on the OSM.org website (like the SOTM-US banner) needs a means for
> management. Both of these things are going to be governed by Local Chapter
> agreements.
>
> There's been some weird proposals in the past, like Local Chapters can not
> run any kind of OSM server. That is definitely off the table. Was a dumb
> restriction that was thinking only about "forking", but then other
> non-prescriptive clauses in the agreement would cover that case (ie
> supporting the OSM project).
>
> It would be shortsighted for OSM-US to not engage in the local chapters
> process, and figure out what a federated governance looks like. And it
> wouldn't strike the right tone for a newly re-energized OSM-US. It's one
> thing if you're just a group of mappers somewhere, but once you have
> registration, are raising significant money, throwing events, and
> promoting, not having a legal relationship with the organization that holds
> the servers of the projects you're based on is not structurally sound. We
> need to encourage the OSMF to tighten up legally where necessary, stay
> minimal, but be clear and fair. There needs to be a legal relationship with
> chapters.
>
> Best
> Mikel
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20121025/8bdab26a/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list