On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:52:27AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:

Am 05.07.2011 10:19, schrieb Arthur Bonino:

...

• Ausschluss: 'Grundlos finde ich sehr schwach

'vereins-widriges Verhalten' (Gegen-Interessen) ...?

It's done this way because of

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/210/a72.html 2nd paragraph

What about option 3: "If nothing is mentioned then exclusion can only be done per decision by the association and for important reasons."

Then we could get rid of the paragraph. Or do you think "decision by the association" might become too complicated?

Sarah

I rather get a queasy feeling thinking that Google might get excluded simply because it happens to reject the application of the president's sister-in-law. So, I'm rather in favour of the general assembly voting on that. (I'm just not sure if it has to be a unimous vote then etc.)

Pragmatically, I can't see any reason either at the moment why anyone would be excluded. (Nope, not even Google.) So let's deal with it when there is a case and keep the AoA simple for the moment.

As for not paying dues: what do you think about adding a clause that membership ceases automatically if not payed? Is it difficult? It would it make it easier for members and the association. (I don't know about you but I'm notoriously bad at remembering to cancel my memberships. And that is why I'm normally relucant to join any association which does not cancel membership automatically on non-payment.)

Sarah

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 11:39:45PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:

Well except for not paying the membership dues (rather frequent), I don't believe I've ever actually seen such a clause invoked.

Essentially it's a trade-off between being fair to the (ex)-member and avoiding endless battles. I don't have strong feelings about the issue (see above). Just stuff like "verein- widriges Verhalten" is just so undefined that trying to expel a member for it gives me a real queasy feeling in my stomach.

Lets turn the question around: would anybody have a problem with google becoming a member? And what level of competitive behaviour would start causing a problem? Would you want to start arguing about it with a google representative in front of the general assembly (it is extremely unlikely that google would)? Or would you rather have the board handle it?

My apologies to google, they are just a convenient potential BöFei example.

Simon

Am 05.07.2011 22:38, schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:

...

On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 10:52:27AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:

...

Am 05.07.2011 10:19, schrieb Arthur Bonino:

...

• Ausschluss: 'Grundlos finde ich sehr schwach

'vereins-widriges Verhalten' (Gegen-Interessen) ...?

It's done this way because of

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/210/a72.html 2nd paragraph

What about option 3: "If nothing is mentioned then exclusion can only be done per decision by the association and for important reasons."

Then we could get rid of the paragraph. Or do you think "decision by the association" might become too complicated?

Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

---

talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch

Am 07.07.2011 15:48, schrieb Marc Zoss:

A couple of comment on my behalf on the Association process:

• I agree with datendelphin that we have been covering quite some

grounds without any association for the past years. However, I see the advantage of having some sort of formalisation by means of an association: Dealing with other parties, such as governments, companies or other organisations is considerably easier if you have the osm_ch formally behind you rather than to to it on your own, personal behalf. For our internal organisation I would wish that the association somewhat increases transparency as well as responsibility of current activities (even if our mailing-list will probably remain the main communication channel).

I fully agree, I would like to repeat what I said in an earlier mail: I think it's important to stress the point that we don't want to exclude non-members or in any form make it "mandatory" to be a member, but there are just some things that work better when you have a formal body available. Adding to what Marc wrote above, it at least gives us the possibility to disassociate the technical and creative work that goes in to providing services based on OSM data from the liability risks associated with running a public service.

In the discussion it was stated that the association might become a local chapter of the OSMF. I currently only see limited advantages, while it seems to be associated with quite some additional tasks (eg reporting) if I look at the proposed agreement between OSMF and the local chapter [1]. So becoming a local chapter wouldn't be too high on my priority list.

Essentially at -this- point in time I wouldn't expect too much from being a local chapter, it does give you rights to use the name and logo (making everything a bit more official) and does offer some turf protection.

Longer term I expect some kind of indirect membership in the OSMF for local chapter members, this hasn't been discussed at all, but if formal membership actually takes on in the OSM community, it will simply be necessary. That said, I didn't find the reporting requirements particularly burdensome, and as far as I know the requirements are still under discussion.

Therefore, I would support creating the association, but to keep it as lean as possible and the bylaws as flexible as possible.

On the bylaws:

Member exclusion procedure: I would opt to keep the para on the exclusion (no justification required) for the time being. In further stages we should think about a bit more elaborate, transparent (and fair) procedure. But I think this will be easier, once we have some experience. I don't think its appropriate to formulate some fancy exclusion procedures now, if we are not really aware of the problems and its context.

I would just like to remind the readers, that an member can appeal to the GA if he really doesn't want to except the expulsion.

Purpose:

• I agree with Simon, that the phrase on the type of activities

(non-/commercial/profit) does not clearly refer to the people, projects, etc. To my interpretation, it rather refers to the support and promotion. Why not just drop the second sentence?

• Simon suggests to drop the third sentence (The Association itself is

not profit-oriented.) since no association may be profit-oriented according to Swiss law. If becoming a OSMF local chapter will be an option it might be not a bad idea to keep the sentence in, since OSMF puts quite some emphasis on "non-profit" (whatever this means), see the preamble in [1]. Additionally, it might not hurt to keep it in, in order to indicate that we are not an industry association or something similar (as stated by Simon).

General assembly:

• Let's assume the AGM takes place within the first half of the year,

e.g. on 15 May. Does it make sense to approve a budget of the current year of which already more than four months have passed?

No :-), that's why I originally had 3 months in there but changed it to 6. I'm all for three, but it does mean some stress for whoever will be doing the administration.

The auditors:

• A check based upon random sampling is to be conducted. Shouldn't

this check be part of the financial report, and thus the bylaws should refer to it?

In Swiss associations it's typical for the auditors (except if you actually get to the level of having a formal audit) to be regular members and to present their report at the General Assembly (see General Assembly (c) . I would expect that the invitation to the GA would normally include at least a financial report and the new budget, but would be slightly reluctant to spell that out.

Liability:

• Reading the respective article [2] of the ZGB, it seems to me that

this section is not required at all.

I believe this is in there simply due to the endless confusion the pre-2005 regulations caused, which is still reflected in, probably thousands of, bylaws throughout the country. From a pure legal pov I would agree that it is not needed, however a lot of people looking at the bylaws might expect something to be explicitly stated.

Simon