Ben Gimpert ben at somethingmodern.com
Sat Apr 1 10:08:54 BST 2006

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 02:39:47PM +0200, Erik Johansson wrote:
> On 3/30/06, Ben Gimpert <ben at somethingmodern.com> wrote:
> > Oh and I would not give a single pence if I have to go to meetings,
> > voting boards, pow-wows, peace rallies, etc.  All I want is the ability
> > to accurately monitor -- *without* a mandate to control -- how my money
> > is being spent.
> Just give money and don't go then,

I should clarify -- the mandate to control should not rest in *anyone*
(myself included) who hasn't walked the talk of earning a technical
stake in the work of OSM.  Its about who gets to decide how the money is
spent, not just my being "too busy" to attend meetings.

After Andy's excellent points relating to data gathering and the
swimming club, I'm hesitantly broadening my "coders and sysadmins"
grouping to include those users who are significant contributors of
data.  I'm hesitant because I still tend to think those doing coding and
admin should trump data gatherers.

> being able to monitor/audit is one of the hardest and costly thing to
> do. You want to audit two things:
> 1. economic
> 2. activities
> An economic audit is (relativly) easy to do if we are talking about
> controlling where the donations goes. Auditing the activity is alot
> harder.

I've already described a simple, albeit faulted, means of auditing the
activities -- an auction model.  And the economic audit is just a list
of funders and their contributions, with many names given as "anonymous
from the UK" or whatever.

> Now I've audited non-profit associations (Student unions, and a local
> LUG), and Foundations (Schoolarships).  The non-profits I've worked
> for are alot more engaging than the foundations, so I do hope we are
> talking about somekind of organization where I can actually voice my
> opinion.

I really hope we don't found, and potentially fund, OSM's first legal
entity as a debating society.


More information about the talk mailing list