Hi Brian I think we should have "ordinary" members with full voting rights. Another class of membership should be for "organisations". They should be required to nominate an individual to represent them. Their voting rights should be limited so they cannot vote for committee membership or stand on the committee.
At this time I would also suggest we set a minimum age for any type of membership to 18. I believe this would simplify issues when it come to complying with child protection legislation. Apart form the initial cost of setting up any organisation. I would guess the main annual cost will be insurance and auditor fees for the accounts. This assumes that we won't be paying the committee expenses! I'm aware of a couple of organisations that seem to do this for an annual fee of £25-£35 for ordinary membership. Any "organisation" type of membership would need to be excluded from the insurance unless we got down an affiliate model along the lines of mountaineering clubs that affiliate to the BMC for example. Kind Regards Dudley Sent from my iPad > On 25 Jan 2016, at 18:36, Brian Prangle <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi everyone > > Don't forget this is scheduled for 8pm Wed this week 27 January > > 0800 22 90 900 Pass code 33224 > > We'll pick up on Rob's summary email i.e objectives;legal stucture; > constitution > > If we can I'd like to start discussing: > > Name (not what it will be - but a mechanism for choosing one) > Membership classes, rights and costs > > On objectives:the ensuing silence since draft 2 I'm not sure to take as > indifference or approval, but let's use the text as a starting point: > > 1.To increase the size, skills, toolsets and cohesion of the OpenStreetMap > community in the UK. > > 2.To promote and facilitate the use of OpenStreetMap data by organisations in > the UK. > > 3.To promote and facilitate the release by organisations in the UK of > OpenData that is suitable for use in OpenStreetMap. > > On legal structures, please read Rob's excellent summary before the concall. > I've read it and my conclusion so far, and I'm still not clear on some > things, is that we shouldn't go for unincorporated society (unlimited > liablity for officers) or charity (we don't have a charitable purpose and the > legal strictures are a bit more complex than we'd want). From the rest I > think company limited by guarantee (that's what OSMF chose) suits us best. > Not sure yet whether CIO or CIC, given that we'd be non-profit, are worth > considering. > > Look forward to "seeing" you Wed > > Regards > > Brian > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
