[OSM-talk] wiki - OSM Foundation

[SteveC]

* @ 22/05/06 01:25:26 AM 80n80n at gmail.com wrote:
> David
> Those are my words, based on my recollections of the meetings and
> discussions and Steve's recent announcement.
> 
> I've tried to express my understanding of what was agreed in an
> explicit and unambiguous form - hence spelling out the rights and
> obligations of preliminary members.  It's possible (likely)  that
> other people have different interpretations of the meetings and it
> would be good to elicit these now rather than later.
> 
> As I currently understand it the elected officers *will* have carte
> blanche to do whatever they want.  I'd hope that those standing will

Currently *I* have carte blanche to do whatever I want. :-)

But, do whatever they want with what? As far as I'm aware there arn't
any assets other than the servers which technically two of the Nicks
own. If I wanted to be Evil then... we probably wouldn't even be talking
about any of this.

There has to be a certain level of trust here. No, it's not perfect.
Yes, there are open questions: some of them like a quorum are fairly
obvious good checks, some of them like membership will just bog us down
in debate forever.

It's not called Open for nothing. I'm trying to *give away* my Emporor
powers

> put forward some kind of manifesto that at least suggests what they

Yes, I'm intending to. I was debating whether OSM _was_ my manifesto or
not :-)

have fun,

SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/