On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jonathan Bennett < [email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
