Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF Special General Meeting
On 26/11/14 01:43, Dave F. wrote: I'm pretty sure casting a vote via email isn't proxy. The notice isn't a request to vote. Requests for special meetings, and, I think any resolutions, from the members, are not binding unless there is support from a certain proportion of those with voting rights. What is being done here is attempting to demonstrate that level of support. The document mentioned is not a valid call for a meeting, it is rather a call for people to create a valid call for one. At the stage at which the page was written, there was not even a requirement to notify all the members. The 5% represents a compromise between avoiding a small clique causing disruption by continually calling meetings and the potential difficulty that a proposer would have in contacting all the members without help from the company, together with an allowance for the proportion of members who would vote an anything. When the actual meeting notice is issued, it is a legal requirement that details of how to appoint a proxy are included in the meeting notice. I am fairly sure the resolutions would affect current directors; I think they would require an explicit clause to exclude them. Although I am not a full member, so can't vote on the resolution, it seems to that the proponents should have provided some background information, e.g. details of other companies implementing similar rules, and the reasons they think they are necessary. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF Special General Meeting
On 26 November 2014 at 08:23, David Woolley for...@david-woolley.me.uk wrote: When the actual meeting notice is issued, That notice has already been given - see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2014-November/003079.html Thanks, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OSMF Special General Meeting
I propose an addendum to the resolution: We all go outside do some mapping. It appears that some people have lost sight of what OSM is for. This happens in many organisations when they get to a certain size attract 'organisers'; - people who are not interested in its primary objective but obsessed with the paraphernalia of instigating committees, meetings, agenda, minutes, points of order etc. They're just members of the B ark. As an example, watch this Channel 4 program from 1994, if you have the time: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-club/on-demand. It's about a golf club's hierarchy where it turns out the chairman can't swing a club to save his life. Dave F. On 26/11/2014 08:23, David Woolley wrote: On 26/11/14 01:43, Dave F. wrote: I'm pretty sure casting a vote via email isn't proxy. The notice isn't a request to vote. Requests for special meetings, and, I think any resolutions, from the members, are not binding unless there is support from a certain proportion of those with voting rights. What is being done here is attempting to demonstrate that level of support. The document mentioned is not a valid call for a meeting, it is rather a call for people to create a valid call for one. At the stage at which the page was written, there was not even a requirement to notify all the members. The 5% represents a compromise between avoiding a small clique causing disruption by continually calling meetings and the potential difficulty that a proposer would have in contacting all the members without help from the company, together with an allowance for the proportion of members who would vote an anything. When the actual meeting notice is issued, it is a legal requirement that details of how to appoint a proxy are included in the meeting notice. I am fairly sure the resolutions would affect current directors; I think they would require an explicit clause to exclude them. Although I am not a full member, so can't vote on the resolution, it seems to that the proponents should have provided some background information, e.g. details of other companies implementing similar rules, and the reasons they think they are necessary. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Wikis are not tablets of stone as suggested by the suburbs debate: a proposal
Hi Brian, The real problem with the wiki is that pages tend to be prescriptive rather than descriptive. This is the difference between Fowler Fowler (or for Americans Strunk and White) and a good dictionary. A quick scan of Language Log http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ will show all the problems of prescriptive usage forms (not least, that the prescriber are often just plain wrong http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2922). Given the keenness for the prescriptivism of English usage guides, trying to change who key value pages are written on the OSM wiki is probably a Sisyphean task. One simple start would be to remove the voting element from tag proposals, which is rarely truly consensual (given the quorum is 15 from say 500,000); and remove use of the term 'deprecated' which is prescriptive. Taginfo, of course, provides the baseline for a descriptive approach. For this reason I largely use it when trying to choose a tag for something I rarely tag. Regards, Jerry On 24 November 2014 at 14:23, Brian Prangle bpran...@gmail.com wrote: Hi everyone Why not have a large advisory at the head of every wiki page which links to the following content? The content of a wiki page is: 1. as close to authoritative as possible but NOT AUTHORITATIVE 2. for guidance only: it is NOT MANDATORY 3. reflects only the collective opinion of the editors of the page 4.subject to local knowledge and ground surveys which ALWAYS TAKE PRIORITY OVER WIKI CONTENT 5. to be ignored only after careful thought and suitable tagging with a note= xxx tag to explain 6.not to be used as a basis for automated edits: See policy on automated edits which requires discussion with the community affected and the reaching of a consensus. Rgds Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
