Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Nick Black wrote: > Focus. OSM-F focuses on global issues, OSMF-GB focusses on local / national > issues. That sounds like the need for a working group, not a separate legal entity. > OSM-F Local > * Local community building and outreach > * Local / national conferences > * Local / national press contacts & outreach > * Supporting local user groups in mapping and outreach > * Running local websites > * Local membership schemes If OSMF can't deal with a sub-task to handle UK-related matters, what hope is there of any sub-organisation dealing with sub-sub-tasks? Do we need to incorporate OSMF-GB-London-Postboxes Ltd, or would OSMF-GB-London be able to set up a relevant working group? We only need separate legal entities when we reach the edges of separate legal systems. It feels like we're having a "relations are not categories" argument here - we don't need to put every different activity into a separate legal body. Cheers, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Chris Hill wrote: > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language > > > conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. > > > > Cheers, Chris > > > One need would be to organise and coordinate local mapping. For instance, > in my area (the "Solent" area or "central southern England" for want of a > better word) a goal to work towards might be to get all towns done, or to > map local national parks / recreational areas e.g. the New Forest or South > Downs. > > Nick > > > > This just feels horribly like a layer of bureaucracy to me. Why would the > foundation want to get involved with organising local mapping? I certainly > don't need some "official" body to prod me into completing an area. > Right, but just because you don't doesn't mean that other people who haven't yet heard of OSM wouldn't benefit from outreach activities that a local GB group could support. Thinking back on the funding we got from RightMove ( http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=204) to sponsor mapping parties, it all helped get the ball rolling and helped build the OSM community. -- Nick > > > > Cheers, Chris > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
Nick Whitelegg wrote: What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. Cheers, Chris One need would be to organise and coordinate local mapping. For instance, in my area (the "Solent" area or "central southern England" for want of a better word) a goal to work towards might be to get all towns done, or to map local national parks / recreational areas e.g. the New Forest or South Downs. Nick This just feels horribly like a layer of bureaucracy to me. Why would the foundation want to get involved with organising local mapping? I certainly don't need some "official" body to prod me into completing an area. Cheers, Chris ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jonathan Bennett < openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote: > Nick Black wrote: > > > So far as the structure goes, I had thought that one GB org could work, > > if it had a series of user groups associated with it. The GB Chapter > > could handle GB issues, raising funds to help support national and user > > group activities, perhaps running a GB website, lobbying the UK > > government to release data (!), and generally promoting OSM throughout > > the GB area. The user groups would be focussed on a more local area (eg > > Greater London) and would be affiliated (loosely or more closely) to the > > GB Chapater. > > All those activities are ones we want to see, but is there anything > about them that requires a separate legal entity to OSMF? I'm worried > that we'd be creating extra bureaucracy unnecessarily. > > Can you explain the specific benefits of having both OSMF and OSMF-GB? Focus. OSM-F focuses on global issues, OSMF-GB focusses on local / national issues. This is just an idea, but I think are two quite different sets of responsibilities, that should actually reduce the bureaucracy for the local / national group. OSM-F * Licensing * Monitoring data inputs * Global outreach and partnering * Annual OSM-wide conferences like SOTM * Legal frameworks * Owning core API servers * Global membership OSM-F Local * Local community building and outreach * Local / national conferences * Local / national press contacts & outreach * Supporting local user groups in mapping and outreach * Running local websites * Local membership schemes -- Nick > > > -- > Jonathan (Jonobennett) > -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
Nick Black wrote: > So far as the structure goes, I had thought that one GB org could work, > if it had a series of user groups associated with it. The GB Chapter > could handle GB issues, raising funds to help support national and user > group activities, perhaps running a GB website, lobbying the UK > government to release data (!), and generally promoting OSM throughout > the GB area. The user groups would be focussed on a more local area (eg > Greater London) and would be affiliated (loosely or more closely) to the > GB Chapater. All those activities are ones we want to see, but is there anything about them that requires a separate legal entity to OSMF? I'm worried that we'd be creating extra bureaucracy unnecessarily. Can you explain the specific benefits of having both OSMF and OSMF-GB? -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:08, Nick Whitelegg wrote: >> My main comment was that the proposal didn't 'sit' well with the > government regional structures. > > I do have to make the comment though that the government regional > structures are rather arbitrary and do not reflect real cultural > regions. > > Where I am in Southampton, I'm supposedly in the same governnment > regional > area as places 100 or 150 miles east of me, yet places just 10 miles > to > the northwest are in a different regional area. Thus if we are to > organise > English regional chapters, they should revolve around real population > centres (e.g. Southampton/Portsmouth/Bournemouth, Bristol, > Newcastle, etc) > rather than arbitrary and meaningless government definitions. The distinctions are not arbitrary and meaningless to government, far from it. My point was that if, and only if the local chapter was created to help communicate with government then we should align our structure to their structure. If, we don't want to talk to government then why do we need the hassle of a legal entity at all? Also... We must make sure that any structure we devise will cover the country completely in a way that works for everyone. I note that Traveline doesn't align with government regional structures, but that every county is in one and only one Traveline region. Police forces were meant to reorganise around government regions but this was resisted and was I believe abandoned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4466000/4466412.stm?l Regards, Peter > > Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Jonathan Bennett < openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote: > David Earl wrote: > > On 18/08/2009 12:42, Chris Hill wrote: > >> What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language > >> conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. > > > > The main reason is one of the reasons behind the idea of local chapters > > in the first place - to give an "official" point of contact for bodies > > that care about such things. Some bodies find it very hard to deal with > > individuals somehow representing an amorphous organisation. > > How does the OSMF* not fulfil this role? There's no reason someone who > needs official backing, as it were, can't be made a member of the > foundation. When Local Chapters are up and running, the OSM-F will be focussed more on issues that affect the whole of the OpenStreetMap community. Things like maintaining the central DB and API, legal representation for things like licenses, organizing the annual SOTM, running the osm.org websites, merchandising and so on, will be more of the focus of the OSM-F. Local Chapters are there to support OSM in local communities. This could include things like talking with local organizations about data imports, supporting local initiatives (like Mappa-Mercia, or the London summer mapping marathon), running local conferences and events and generally supporting the local OSM community. The OSM-F would be focussed on more pan-OSM issues, like the ones explained above. So far as the structure goes, I had thought that one GB org could work, if it had a series of user groups associated with it. The GB Chapter could handle GB issues, raising funds to help support national and user group activities, perhaps running a GB website, lobbying the UK government to release data (!), and generally promoting OSM throughout the GB area. The user groups would be focussed on a more local area (eg Greater London) and would be affiliated (loosely or more closely) to the GB Chapater. Just some ideas - interested to hear your comments. -- Nick > > > *OSMF = OpenStreetMap Foundation Ltd., a company limited by guarantee > incorporated in the United Kingdom. > > > -- > Jonathan (Jonobennett) > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- -- Nick Black twitter.com/nick_b ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
>What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. >Cheers, Chris One need would be to organise and coordinate local mapping. For instance, in my area (the "Solent" area or "central southern England" for want of a better word) a goal to work towards might be to get all towns done, or to map local national parks / recreational areas e.g. the New Forest or South Downs. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
>My main comment was that the proposal didn't 'sit' well with the government regional structures. I do have to make the comment though that the government regional structures are rather arbitrary and do not reflect real cultural regions. Where I am in Southampton, I'm supposedly in the same governnment regional area as places 100 or 150 miles east of me, yet places just 10 miles to the northwest are in a different regional area. Thus if we are to organise English regional chapters, they should revolve around real population centres (e.g. Southampton/Portsmouth/Bournemouth, Bristol, Newcastle, etc) rather than arbitrary and meaningless government definitions. Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
David Earl wrote: > On 18/08/2009 12:42, Chris Hill wrote: >> What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language >> conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. > > The main reason is one of the reasons behind the idea of local chapters > in the first place - to give an "official" point of contact for bodies > that care about such things. Some bodies find it very hard to deal with > individuals somehow representing an amorphous organisation. How does the OSMF* not fulfil this role? There's no reason someone who needs official backing, as it were, can't be made a member of the foundation. *OSMF = OpenStreetMap Foundation Ltd., a company limited by guarantee incorporated in the United Kingdom. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
On 18/08/2009 12:42, Chris Hill wrote: > What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language > conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. The main reason is one of the reasons behind the idea of local chapters in the first place - to give an "official" point of contact for bodies that care about such things. Some bodies find it very hard to deal with individuals somehow representing an amorphous organisation. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
Chris Hill wrote: > What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language > conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. Well, there is the issue of some very strange regional accents and dialects. ;-) Nick. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
What is the point of local chapters in England? We don't have language conversion issues, currency issues or time zone issues. Cheers, Chris David Earl wrote: I put a proposal on the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters for a central England OSM local chapter. Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss it here. I have no huge feelings about this. I just felt that we have a high density of mappers in the UK so it deserved more local representation. I can't say I'm that interested in running a national scale organisation, whereas something more regionally focussed is up my street. While Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are relatively small in population terms, people tend to be protective of their identity (rightly so, I think), so I didn't include those. Indeed there's no particular reason why our chapters have to divide along nationalistic lines, and Ireland might feel something covering the whole island might be appropriate. Not for me to say, and no doubt there are some delicate sensitivities there. What I do feel uneasy about is including (greater) London. Because it is so big, and has specific metropolitan features, and has a high density of people involved, in any sphere it tends to dominate anything to the detriment of outside London. I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone in London here, but some Londoners have been known to take a London-centric view of the world (I regard "the provinces" as pejorative). Typical journalists in the Guardian article used a London example - they think and breathe London. So I do think there is a case for separating London or some greater south-east area from the rest. But if we had the south-east and the rest of England, I'd be quite happy. But at the end of the day, I'm not too bothered about the whole thing, though I don't really want to put myself forward for something on the scale of the whole country, but would happily do so for something smaller. I'm sorry I missed the phone call yesterday. I was expecting someone to contact me with the number to call. But if things are changing to not include Foundation membership with chapter membership I think that's a mistake - it's hard enough to get people to join one organisation, let alone two. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
Arguably, even a central England chapter is too big in some respects. We set up mappa-mercia.org to promote and "represent" ourselves in the West Midlands area because it's much easier to get local press and bodies interested in working with us if we are seen as a local entity. This is starting to bear fruit as we have been successful in engaging with Birmingham City Council and others. I think those that have done similar things very much on their own in their own home towns also works well. David's work in Cambridge being a prime example. Thus the importance is people. These things only work and take off if individuals alone or together want to make it happen and push it on. The local chapter really isn't needed unless it needs support beyond its own means. For example in our case shortly to provide an invoice to a sponsor, which we will need to do through OSMF to channel the funds. It would be better to do that through a local chapter in the long run and one for the UK is more than sufficient in my view. Thus while I'm in support of a UK chapter (which could in reality perhaps simply be a subsidiary of the OSMF Ltd company probably) that represents UK interests, I don't see the benefit of spitting it down further except as we have in an informal manner as the wish arises locally. Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl >Sent: 18 August 2009 11:30 AM >To: osm-gb >Subject: [Talk-GB] English chapter > >I put a proposal on the wiki page >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapt >ers >for a central England OSM local chapter. > >Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss >it here. > >I have no huge feelings about this. I just felt that we have a high >density of mappers in the UK so it deserved more local representation. I >can't say I'm that interested in running a national scale organisation, >whereas something more regionally focussed is up my street. > >While Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are relatively small in >population terms, people tend to be protective of their identity >(rightly so, I think), so I didn't include those. Indeed there's no >particular reason why our chapters have to divide along nationalistic >lines, and Ireland might feel something covering the whole island might >be appropriate. Not for me to say, and no doubt there are some delicate >sensitivities there. > >What I do feel uneasy about is including (greater) London. Because it is >so big, and has specific metropolitan features, and has a high density >of people involved, in any sphere it tends to dominate anything to the >detriment of outside London. I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone >in London here, but some Londoners have been known to take a >London-centric view of the world (I regard "the provinces" as >pejorative). Typical journalists in the Guardian article used a London >example - they think and breathe London. > >So I do think there is a case for separating London or some greater >south-east area from the rest. > >But if we had the south-east and the rest of England, I'd be quite >happy. But at the end of the day, I'm not too bothered about the whole >thing, though I don't really want to put myself forward for something on >the scale of the whole country, but would happily do so for something >smaller. > >I'm sorry I missed the phone call yesterday. I was expecting someone to >contact me with the number to call. But if things are changing to not >include Foundation membership with chapter membership I think that's a >mistake - it's hard enough to get people to join one organisation, let >alone two. > >David > > >___ >Talk-GB mailing list >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] English chapter
David Earl wrote: > I put a proposal on the wiki page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters > for a central England OSM local chapter. > > Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss > it here. > > I have no huge feelings about this. I just felt that we have a high > density of mappers in the UK so it deserved more local representation. I > can't say I'm that interested in running a national scale organisation, > whereas something more regionally focussed is up my street. David, As I understand it, the local chapters are a way of overcoming national boundaries and the relative difficulty of moving money internationally. It's an attempt to have an organisation in each country analogous to the OSMF that mappers in that country can join. I'm not aware of any plans to have each local chapter set up their own data standards, or being "in charge" of the mapping for its area. I understand your point about the urban south-east dominating the project in the UK at present: As someone who abandoned the Midlands for the South East a long time ago, I see the difference between where I live now being mapped down to the level of each post box, versus where I grew up having primary and secondary routes mapped and little else. This will be solved by recruiting mappers in the blank areas (or persuading the southerners to visit for a weekend), not by setting up a separate, parallel organisation to the OSMF. Setting up local mailing lists, keeping Wiki pages up to date and holding events can all be done for free. Setting up a legal entity would cost real money without bringing any benefits, as far as I can see. I don't therefore support setting up any local chapters within the UK, but I hope you see why. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] English chapter
On 18 Aug 2009, at 11:30, David Earl wrote: I put a proposal on the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters for a central England OSM local chapter. Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss it here. My main comment was that the proposal didn't 'sit' well with the government regional structures. snip So I do think there is a case for separating London or some greater south-east area from the rest. But if we had the south-east and the rest of England, I'd be quite happy. But at the end of the day, I'm not too bothered about the whole thing, though I don't really want to put myself forward for something on the scale of the whole country, but would happily do so for something smaller. The East of England does not include London, but creating a Local Chapter for the East of England sort of implies that there will also be ones for London and the other English regions in due course, and also for Wales and Scotland. Regarding being bothered I think this is likely to be quite a lot of work to set up and run:- legal body, accounts, membership, annual returns etc as well as doing something useful. If we want something simpler then possibly the informal email lists are sufficient. To be clear, I am not proposing to putting too much effort into this proposal but would support someone who wanted to do so. Regards, Peter ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] English chapter
I put a proposal on the wiki page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/Proposed_Chapters for a central England OSM local chapter. Peter disagrees with the (too small) scale of this and wants to discuss it here. I have no huge feelings about this. I just felt that we have a high density of mappers in the UK so it deserved more local representation. I can't say I'm that interested in running a national scale organisation, whereas something more regionally focussed is up my street. While Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are relatively small in population terms, people tend to be protective of their identity (rightly so, I think), so I didn't include those. Indeed there's no particular reason why our chapters have to divide along nationalistic lines, and Ireland might feel something covering the whole island might be appropriate. Not for me to say, and no doubt there are some delicate sensitivities there. What I do feel uneasy about is including (greater) London. Because it is so big, and has specific metropolitan features, and has a high density of people involved, in any sphere it tends to dominate anything to the detriment of outside London. I don't wish to cast aspersions on anyone in London here, but some Londoners have been known to take a London-centric view of the world (I regard "the provinces" as pejorative). Typical journalists in the Guardian article used a London example - they think and breathe London. So I do think there is a case for separating London or some greater south-east area from the rest. But if we had the south-east and the rest of England, I'd be quite happy. But at the end of the day, I'm not too bothered about the whole thing, though I don't really want to put myself forward for something on the scale of the whole country, but would happily do so for something smaller. I'm sorry I missed the phone call yesterday. I was expecting someone to contact me with the number to call. But if things are changing to not include Foundation membership with chapter membership I think that's a mistake - it's hard enough to get people to join one organisation, let alone two. David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
