[OSM-talk] wiki - OSM Foundation

[Andy Robinson]

SteveC wrote:
>Sent: 22 May 2006 09:41
>To: David Groom
>Cc: Talk Openstreetmap; Erik Johansson
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] wiki - OSM Foundation
>
>* @ 22/05/06 12:38:52 AM reviews at pacific-rim.net wrote:
>> Just looking at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Foundation
>>
>> on that page it states "Preliminary Members of the OpenStreetMap
>> Foundation will have the right to vote for the three principal
>> officers of the foundation in the first vote. This vote will be open
>> from June 11, 2006 for a period of x days. Preliminary members will
>> not have any other rights or obligations."
>>
>> My understanding of a strict interpretation of the above, is that once
>> the three principal officers have been elected they can do what ever
>> they like, as the preliminary members have no further rights.  Whilst
>> in practice I am sure it is likely that the three principal officers
>> will have the best interests of the OSM project at heart, I do not
>> like the theory of blindly handing everything over to the control of
>> three people with absolutely no checks or controls.
>>
>> The problem seems to stem from the fact that the idea is to elect
>> three people, but not to give them any specific responsibilities of
>> what they are to do next.
>
>Ok, so maybe this exists only in my head and I'd assumed this was the
>IRC consensus: That the three would work on the long term method of
>membership and would put options to the members to vote on. They'd
>define other formal roles, again to be voted on. And most important for
>me as I'm personally liable for everything right now, the formal
>incorporation options would be voted on.
>
>> I think that allied to the fact that we are to vote for the three
>> specified positions that it should be made clear that it is the
>> responsibility of those three to come up with a constitution / way
>> forward etc, that the preliminary members will be able to vote upon.
>> If in such a vote the a majority of the preliminary members do not
>> agree with the constitution then either the three elected persons
>> should redraft the constitution, or should subject themselves to
>> re-election.
>
>Sounds fair to me.
>

And to me too.


>have fun,
>
>SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Cheers,

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk