[OSM-talk] For the foundation AGM

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

80n wrote:
> Robert
> Thanks for starting this.  I have to get the formal announcement out
> today since we have to give 21 days notice of an AGM.
> 
> My intention is to keep the agenda of the AGM restricted to only those
> things that really have to be done at the AGM.  I don't want it to turn
> into a 4 hour marathon.
> 
> Several of the points that you have added can be, and are being,
> discussed through the normal channels - I don't think we need to
> overload the AGM with these topics.  If an impass is reached on some
> point then it can always be raised under AOB at the meeting.

My thought was that all things should be discussed here, then set to a
vote at the AGM without much (or even any) further debate because the
debate would have already happened, and most of the votes would have
been decided in advance and be done by proxy.

That's why I want to get the debates started ASAP, so that they can
finish in time to pass them at the AGM. :-)

IMHO the most important thing that must be decided and passed at AGM
level is the rules under which the foundation will deal in the rights to
data that is assigned to it. Without good rules, either some people will
consider withdrawing their data (as a few people have threatened), or we
won't solve anything - the foundation's hands will be too tied.
i.e. it won't be able to allow things to be done with the data that are
unclear or not allowed under the license, but agreed with by the
majority of the community (like allow the maps to be used for deriving
public domain postcode data - i.e. freethepostcode / npemaps).

It needs to be decided at AGM level because it needs to be deep enough
in the constitution of the foundation so that "evil SteveC" can't
subvert the foundation and steal the data. :-)

This means we need to decide what the rules will mean in practise, and
ask a lawyer to write them in legally valid language in time for the AGM
in only 21 days so that we can pass the resolution then.

I think I'll start another thread for the discussion.

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGn2g5z+aYVHdncI0RAllwAKCAxxYgGMUYblaRCEq1wQkvM0laBgCgo1Gl
kjvATlQp8ra8xpLQmQiaJyQ=
=0364
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----