[Talk-us] Legal Research

[Ian Dees]

Hi Steve,

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Steve Coast <steve at asklater.com> wrote:

> Ian
>
> I was just emailed privately to say there's hesitation to release the
> original briefing since they’ve moved beyond that. But I’m not sure that’s
> better, since it sounds like there is no documentation and it’s still the
> same agenda.
>

It's pretty hard to argue about openness with "I was just emailed
privately", isn't it? As far as documentation, I direct you to our blog
post and our wiki page. It sounds like you're fishing for something. Can
you just ask for it instead of trying to stir up controversy?


> Also, I’m on the LWG and I saw the emails to the OSMF so I’ve seen all
> that too. If anything, it makes it more worrying. All of this has been
> brought up privately, it’s not new. You’re kind of skipping over why this
> isn’t a LWG or OSMF project. Can we not pretend that there was no feedback
> from them that was ignored?
>

This semester's work isn't being run through LWG because the LWG wasn't
ready to take it on this semester. OpenStreetMap US was happy to work with
the law clinic so that the law students and the organization around them
can get acquainted with the OpenStreetMap community. LWG and OSMF (and the
entire OSM community) have all been invited to participate this semester
via this mailing list, our blog post, and the town hall. Ideally, we would
like to see the LWG take over being the point of contact when they're ready
– perhaps with the next round of students?


> This project would be great if some combination of the following happened:
>
> a) the LWG ran it
> b) the process to design the work we need was open (instead of sharing the
> results in the spring)
> c) other companies and the community were involved, actively
> d) we could also attract independent lawyers, since in the end we need
> real opinion anyway
>
> I don’t think any of that is happening, which is a shame.
>

The process is open and other companies and community members are involved.
I'm hoping that this process will attract other lawyers to participate and
contribute to OSM. Right now, we're focused on this particular law clinic
and the students that are part of it.


> I think what’s happening, and I’m happy to be wrong, is that this is off
> and secret to make sure it doesn’t get overrun by crazy people on the
> mailing list. And that’s a legitimate concern. But the way it’s happening
> is to exclude everyone else too.
>

I disagree. See above.


> If the original briefing document is to be kept secret then whatever the
> new briefing is should be documented and open. This is fairly basic stuff,
> and it’s why, as far as I can tell, the OSMF and LWG didn’t get involved.
>

If I'm understanding what you mean by "original briefing document", as I
mentioned before it is not secret, it is posted on the wiki page here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
.


> This really has the potential to be a great project of obvious benefit,
> but only if it’s open.
>

I'm glad we agree!


>
> Best
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> I assure you that there is nothing secret about this process, its
> intentions, or the result. If you read the blog post (0) and the wiki page
> (1) that Alyssa posted you will find as much information as we have right
> now. Heck, you can even come talk to us face to face at the town hall and
> ask us questions there. We will continue to post about our progress and I'm
> sure we'll have at least one more town hall in the future.
>
> As has been mentioned before, the LWG and OSMF were and are involved in
> this process.
>
> (0) https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/
> (1)
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/2016_Law_Clinic
> On Feb 21, 2016 18:16, "Steve Coast" <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
>
>> It should be pointed out again that this research, based on a - still
>> secret - brief by a company, didn’t happen via the LWG.
>>
>> Hopefully one day we’ll be able to build an open process using real
>> lawyers, instead of secret agendas pushed via students.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2016, at 3:58 PM, alyssa wright <alyssapwright at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Exciting news here! The OSM US board has partnered with the cyber law
>> clinic at Harvard University Law School for some cyber
>> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyber> law research. 💾
>>
>> We are working with two talented young women who bring legal learning and
>> perspective to OpenStreetMap questions. This is smart research that we hope
>> is just the beginning of engaging university students outside of geography
>> and computer majors (which IS most of us anyway).
>>
>> We'll be sharing the semester research in the Spring but if you want to
>> learn more posthaste join us for a Town Hall
>> <https://plus.google.com/u/1/events/cek2evvdtmimm0e3ontdnucends?hl=en>
>> next Wednesday. To whet the legal scholars out there you can also check out
>> the blog announcement <https://openstreetmap.us/2016/02/law-clinic/>
>> starring our newly elected OSM US pet representative.
>>
>> We're also accepting nominations for next year's OSM US pet mascot. 🐈😜
>>
>> Let us know if you have any questions!
>> Best,
>> Alyssa.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160221/c5772200/attachment-0001.html>