Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Tom Hughes]

On 26/08/11 13:48, 80n wrote:


[1] As I recall only members can request a membership list and they have
to provide a reasonable justification for their list.  Failure to supply
the list can be challenged in the courts.


Nope. The only difference is that you can't charge members for it but 
you can charge non-members. Details here:


  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/116

Actually strictly speaking you can charge anybody that wants a copy but 
you have to allow members to inspect it for free.


Requests can only be rejected if the company applies to the court for 
permission to do so:


  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/117

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 8:32 AM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of whether the data protection act was relevant, we acted on the
> side of caution.

I wouldn't characterize withholding relevant public information from
the public as acting on the side of caution.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Tom Hughes  wrote:

> On 26/08/11 10:47, 80n wrote:
>
>  The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people
>> were members of OSMF.  Membership of an organisation is personal
>> information and we did not want to leak that information in any form
>> whatsoever.
>>
>
> Of course the Companies Act actually requires the Foundation to provide a
> full list of members to anybody that asks anyway...
>
> Indeed.  And if somebody [1] had asked then there is an obligation to
provide that person with the list of members.  But that's not the same as
broadcasting the information in public to everyone.

You, as a member of OSMF, can request a list of members but that probably
wouldn't disclose email addresses and you might not be able to infer if
anyone on the list was a Skobbler employee.  Announcing that a large number
of Skobbler employees is exceeding the obligations that the board has.  That
announcement should not have been made.

80n

[1] As I recall only members can request a membership list and they have to
provide a reasonable justification for their list.  Failure to supply the
list can be challenged in the courts.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Barnett, Phillip <
phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:

> From the legislation guidance notes
> "An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
> from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name together
> with some other information will be sufficient to identify them."
>
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm
>
>
>  So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made from
> Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every single
> Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an application to
> join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the membership status of any
> individual employee, and so this is not 'personal' information but aggregate
> group information.
>
>
Regardless of whether the data protection act was relevant, we acted on the
side of caution.

CloudMade is not Apple.  If we had disclosed that a large number of
CloudMade employees had just signed up then because it was such a small
company it would have been pretty easy to deduce who might or might not be a
member.

In any case since there was no wrong doing there was nothing to disclose
anyway.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Anthony]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:08 AM, David Earl  wrote:
> Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official
> Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a
> requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was
> available on demand to any member who requests it. That is the default
> position of their model constitution for charities. This seemed to us very
> odd indeed, quite contrary to Data Protection principles.

Seems to me most of you are misinterpreting the Data Protection Act.
Where do you get the idea that it would stop you from revealing the
membership of a charity?  The laws of most jurisdictions provide the
exact opposite - that the names and addresses of non-profit
organization members is public knowledge.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

David,
See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/31 which specifically 
points to charities having exemption for various reasons - mostly to do with 
transparency of operation.
Phillip


PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?


From: David Earl [da...@frankieandshadow.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 12:08
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: 80n; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

On 26/08/2011 11:33, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
>  From the legislation guidance notes
> "An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
> from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name
> together with some other information will be sufficient to identify them."
> http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm
>
> So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made
> from Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every
> single Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an
> application to join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the
> membership status of any individual employee, and so this is not
> 'personal' information but aggregate group information.
>
> And therefore the Data Protection Act doesn't come into it.

Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official
Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a
requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was
available on demand to any member who requests it. That is the default
position of their model constitution for charities. This seemed to us
very odd indeed, quite contrary to Data Protection principles. The CC
didn't actually insist on that as a requirement of our constitution, but
we queried the point with them and they basically said "the organisation
is the membership and if you can't show to someone that the membership
exists, then the organisation doesn't exist" (I paraphrase).

See Part 2, sec 8.4
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/guidance/gd3text.pdf

David

Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[David Earl]

On 26/08/2011 11:33, Barnett, Phillip wrote:

 From the legislation guidance notes
"An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual
from other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name
together with some other information will be sufficient to identify them."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm

So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made
from Apple employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every
single Apple employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an
application to join, we are not be able to reverse-engineer the
membership status of any individual employee, and so this is not
'personal' information but aggregate group information.

And therefore the Data Protection Act doesn't come into it.


Interestingly, when we converted an organisation recently to an official 
Charity under UK law, the Charity Commission wanted us to make it a 
requirement that the full membership list (names and home addresses) was 
available on demand to any member who requests it. That is the default 
position of their model constitution for charities. This seemed to us 
very odd indeed, quite contrary to Data Protection principles. The CC 
didn't actually insist on that as a requirement of our constitution, but 
we queried the point with them and they basically said "the organisation 
is the membership and if you can't show to someone that the membership 
exists, then the organisation doesn't exist" (I paraphrase).


See Part 2, sec 8.4 
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/guidance/gd3text.pdf


David


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

[http://images.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?




From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 10:47
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees


On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Barnett, Phillip 
mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk>> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip 
mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk>> wrote:

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government.

>The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were 
>members of OSMF.  >Membership of an organisation is personal information and 
>we did not want to leak that information in >any form whatsoever.

From the legislation guidance notes
"An individual is 'identified' if you have distinguished that individual from 
other members of a group. In most cases an individual's name together with some 
other information will be sufficient to identify them."
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/determining_what_is_personal_data/whatispersonaldata2.htm


So if you had said that a large number of applications had been made from Apple 
employees, then since we have no way of knowing whether every single Apple 
employee, up to and including the janitor, had made an application to join, we 
are not be able to reverse-engineer the membership status of any individual 
employee, and so this is not 'personal' information but aggregate group 
information.

And therefore the Data Protection Act doesn't come into it.
Phillip






Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/26 80n <80n...@gmail.com>:
>... that these
> people signed up because they were passionate about OSM when the evidence
> suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block
> voting.
>
> Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing


IMHO there is something wrong with "for the purpose of block voting.".
"Block voting" suggests that they didn't (wouldn't have had) vote(d)
based on individual judgement but rather on order. This is not
desirable.

Please note that I am not saying that cloudmade actually did perform
this block vote, but I say that if they had done it, it would seem
wrong to me.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Tom Hughes]

On 26/08/11 10:47, 80n wrote:


The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people
were members of OSMF.  Membership of an organisation is personal
information and we did not want to leak that information in any form
whatsoever.


Of course the Companies Act actually requires the Foundation to provide 
a full list of members to anybody that asks anyway...


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Barnett, Phillip <
phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip <
> phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not
> revealing personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group.
> You are clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most
> of the voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can
> cross-refer to the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that
> doesn't mean I've released the personal details of 40 million people!
>
>  In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since
> they're not under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees
> names and faces and email addresses is presumably between them, their
> employees, and the US government.
>
> The data point that we would have been revealing is that these people were
members of OSMF.  Membership of an organisation is personal information and
we did not want to leak that information in any form whatsoever.

Like you say, it's a sideshow.  We didn't reveal the facts at the time and I
believe that was the correct thing to do.  There's nothing irregular about a
co-ordinated signup from one company.  We verified that the people joining
were real individuals, not sockpuppets, and that was that.

What I am surprised about is that Jim Brown continues to insist that these
people signed up because they were passionate about OSM when the evidence
suggests it was a co-ordinated act probably for the purpose of block
voting.

Jim, there is nothing wrong with doing such a thing, and I'm puzzled why you
make some other excuse.

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

Even if that might be legally correct it’s not morally correct, as we actually 
CAN

trace that to persons. Hiding behind a formal legal description will

save you from persecution only. Nevertheless naming Skobbler is doing harm to 
people.

No-one should have mentioned the name Skobbler in the first place.

 

I consider this a serious lack of respect and Henks’s first mail is proof of 
naming and shaming.

 

 

Gert 

 

 

Van: Barnett, Phillip [mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk] 
Verzonden: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:23 AM
Aan: 80n
CC: talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

 

 

 

 

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F 
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

 



From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 07:25
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees

 

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip  
wrote:


>The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the 
>confidentiality of >personal information.  It would have been a breach of 
>confidence to make it public at the time. 

 

 

Not so. 

 

UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there 
has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who 
appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are 
not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email 
addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps 
to back up your assertion.


>Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been 
>effectively the same as >naming the members.  You'd only need to look 
>here>http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team 
><http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http:/cloudmade.com/team>  to have 
>a pretty good idea >of who was a member.  

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

 

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government. 

 


HTH 

Phillip

Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.

<>___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

[http://images.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?




From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 26 August 2011 07:25
To: Barnett, Phillip
Cc: Jim Brown; talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees



On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip 
mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk>> wrote:

>The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the 
>confidentiality of >personal information.  It would have been a breach of 
>confidence to make it public at the time.


Not so.

UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there 
has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who 
appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are 
not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email 
addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps 
to back up your assertion.

>Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been 
>effectively the same as >naming the members.  You'd only need to look 
>here>http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team to 
>have a pretty good idea >of who was a member.

Well, this is a sideshow to the main debate, but you are still not revealing 
personal data, merely a fact about some or all members of a group. You are 
clear to do this under the UK Data Protection Act. I can say '"Most of the 
voting population of the UK live in this country" and you can cross-refer to 
the UK electoral register, for names and addresses, but that doesn't mean I've 
released the personal details of 40 million people!

In this instance, Cloudmade were releasing personal data. But since they're not 
under UK law,  the fact that they released their own employees names and faces 
and email addresses is presumably between them, their employees, and the US 
government.


HTH
Phillip
Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Barnett, Phillip  wrote:

>
> >The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve
> the confidentiality of >personal information.  It would have been a breach
> of confidence to make it public at the time.
>
>
>  Not so.
>
>  UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that '
> there has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people
> who appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order -
> you are not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say,
> email addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them,
> perhaps to back up your assertion.
>

Saying 'a large number of applications from CloudMade' would have been
effectively the same as naming the members.  You'd only need to look here
http://web.archive.org/web/20090524055747/http://cloudmade.com/team to have
a pretty good idea of who was a member.

The important point is that we didn't reveal this information.  We saw an
irregularity and investigated.  We concluded that all the applications were
bona-fide and they should be allowed as members.  I've no idea whether they
subsequently voted and I don't really care.

What I do care about is that Jim Brown is making an assertion that this was
done because CloudMade employees wanted passionately to join OSMF.  This is
what I'm calling him out on.

Jim, do you still maintain that a large number of CloudMade employees and
associates all spontaneously decided to join OSMF within one twenty-four
hour period?

80n
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Russ Nelson]

Jim Brown writes:
 > Sure...  They were passionate prior to that of course.  Look at the 
 > evolution of the kyiv map over time.  It's also really telling that so many 
 > have left Cloudmade and still are part of the community,  these are 
 > individual mappers your are talking about.  People who give a damn about OSM,

I was a mapper before, during, and after my Cloudmade days.

 > They just started talking and asking about getting into OSMF, which they 
 > needed help doing as you probably recall I think.  It used to be much harder 
 > to join.  So we decided to help, and so they joined.

You need to stir your whitewash, Jim. It's a little thin. I can't
speak for anybody in England or Kyiv, but the community ambassadors
were instructed to join the OSMF, and the cost was expensable. It was
a great idea, but it came down from corporate, not up from the ranks.

 > I'm doubly surprised that you still think that was some evil plan.  Nothing 
 > particularly evil came from it as I recall.

Agreed, nothing evil came of it.

-- 
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr supports open source software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | Sheepdog   

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Barnett, Phillip]

[http://images.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif]

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T +44 (0)20 7430 4474
F
E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk
WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?




From: 80n [80n...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 August 2011 20:34
To: Jim Brown
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Ed Avis
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler 
employees


>The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve the 
>confidentiality of >personal information.  It would have been a breach of 
>confidence to make it public at the time.


Not so.

UK Data Protection laws exist to safeguard 'personal' data. Saying that ' there 
has been a large number of applications for OSMF membership by people who 
appear to be employees of Apple ' for instance, is perfectly in order - you are 
not releasing any 'personal data' UNLESS you also released, say, email 
addresses and names of the people, which can personally identify them, perhaps 
to back up your assertion.

Phillip

Obligatory disclaimers :
IANAL, but I have read the Data Protection Act. (Which is commonly misused by 
people who haven't read it)

All my opinions are my own, and are not necessarily shared by my employers.



Please Note:

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically 
stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely 
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you 
have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk 

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our 
clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our 
systems.

Thank You.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:

> Sure...  They were passionate prior to that of course.  Look at the
> evolution of the kyiv map over time.  It's also really telling that so many
> have left Cloudmade and still are part of the community,  these are
> individual mappers your are talking about.  People who give a damn about
> OSM,
>
> They just started talking and asking about getting into OSMF, which they
> needed help doing as you probably recall I think.  It used to be much harder
> to join.  So we decided to help, and so they joined.
>

The thing you need to explain is the timing.  Why was there a mass signup
just before the end of the voting period?  Why did you decide to help them
at that moment?


>
> I'm doubly surprised that you still think that was some evil plan.  Nothing
> particularly evil came from it as I recall.
>

Who is making an accusation that it was an evil plan?

What I said was "My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM
on the same day, just one day before the close of email voting for that
year's election."

Why do you feel the need to be defensive?



> But if you do still think there was bad intent, it is obviously pointless
> to try and change your mind.  I'm just glad most of the community seems to
> be over it.
>

It was never publicly disclosed to the community.

The OSMF had an obligation, under the UK data protection laws, to preserve
the confidentiality of personal information.  It would have been a breach of
confidence to make it public at the time.

I can only ask you about it now because you raised the subject here yourself
just now.  As Gert [1] mentioned, it was inappropriate for Henk to have
publicly announced that Skobbler were apparently doing the same thing this
year.

So, could you please explain the timing of this co-ordinated signup by
CloudMade employees and associates?

80n

[1]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/001145.html
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Jim Brown]

Sure...  They were passionate prior to that of course.  Look at the evolution 
of the kyiv map over time.  It's also really telling that so many have left 
Cloudmade and still are part of the community,  these are individual mappers 
your are talking about.  People who give a damn about OSM,

They just started talking and asking about getting into OSMF, which they needed 
help doing as you probably recall I think.  It used to be much harder to join.  
So we decided to help, and so they joined.

I'm doubly surprised that you still think that was some evil plan.  Nothing 
particularly evil came from it as I recall.

But if you do still think there was bad intent, it is obviously pointless to 
try and change your mind.  I'm just glad most of the community seems to be over 
it.

Ciao,


Jim



On 25 Aug 2011, at 08:17, "80n" <80n...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jim Brown 
<j...@cloudmade.com> 
wrote:
I almost hesitate to jump in, but I'd like to give the perspective from 
Cloudmade that I think is probably mirrored in skobbler.

In Cloudmade staff are passionate about OSM and mapping.  Many of the staff 
wanted to join OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that.  And we got the same 
reaction from some parts of the community.


Jim
My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM on the same day, 
just one day before the close of email voting for that year's election.  Care 
to comment on that?

80n



However, I can clearly state that my team (and most of them were my team) would 
have told me to f#%k off if I even tried to tell them how to map, hack or vote.

The employees of Cloudmade are as diverse a set of mappers as any other group 
of OSM members and it was down right rude at that time to view them as 
corporate surrogates being directed to some sinister goal.  They may share some 
common concerns but so do lots of other collections of people in OSM.

In short I think the same thing is happening to the individuals at skobbler who 
are probably wondering now (like my guys did in the past) why the hell did I 
bother getting involved?

My $0.02 only.

Jim Brown
CTO - CloudMade
j...@cloudmade.com

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:34, "John Smith" 
<deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

> On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis 
> <e...@waniasset.com> 
> wrote:
>> Martin Koppenhoefer   
>> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
>>> "relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?
>>
>> It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights
>> holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing 
>> funding
>> to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM.
>
> Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone
> with enough money and other resources to game the system?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
>  
> talk@openstreetmap.org
>  
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[80n]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jim Brown  wrote:

> I almost hesitate to jump in, but I'd like to give the perspective from
> Cloudmade that I think is probably mirrored in skobbler.
>
> In Cloudmade staff are passionate about OSM and mapping.  Many of the staff
> wanted to join OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that.  And we got the same
> reaction from some parts of the community.
>
>
Jim
My recollection was that they all got passionate about OSM on the same day,
just one day before the close of email voting for that year's election.
Care to comment on that?

80n




> However, I can clearly state that my team (and most of them were my team)
> would have told me to f#%k off if I even tried to tell them how to map, hack
> or vote.
>
> The employees of Cloudmade are as diverse a set of mappers as any other
> group of OSM members and it was down right rude at that time to view them as
> corporate surrogates being directed to some sinister goal.  They may share
> some common concerns but so do lots of other collections of people in OSM.
>
> In short I think the same thing is happening to the individuals at skobbler
> who are probably wondering now (like my guys did in the past) why the hell
> did I bother getting involved?
>
> My $0.02 only.
>
> Jim Brown
> CTO - CloudMade
> j...@cloudmade.com
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:34, "John Smith"  wrote:
>
> > On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis  wrote:
> >> Martin Koppenhoefer  gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
> >>> "relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?
> >>
> >> It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the
> rights
> >> holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing
> funding
> >> to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM.
> >
> > Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone
> > with enough money and other resources to game the system?
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Jim Brown]

I almost hesitate to jump in, but I'd like to give the perspective from 
Cloudmade that I think is probably mirrored in skobbler.

In Cloudmade staff are passionate about OSM and mapping.  Many of the staff 
wanted to join OSMF 2 years ago and we encouraged that.  And we got the same 
reaction from some parts of the community.

However, I can clearly state that my team (and most of them were my team) would 
have told me to f#%k off if I even tried to tell them how to map, hack or vote. 
 

The employees of Cloudmade are as diverse a set of mappers as any other group 
of OSM members and it was down right rude at that time to view them as 
corporate surrogates being directed to some sinister goal.  They may share some 
common concerns but so do lots of other collections of people in OSM.

In short I think the same thing is happening to the individuals at skobbler who 
are probably wondering now (like my guys did in the past) why the hell did I 
bother getting involved?

My $0.02 only.

Jim Brown
CTO - CloudMade
j...@cloudmade.com

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Aug 2011, at 05:34, "John Smith"  wrote:

> On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis  wrote:
>> Martin Koppenhoefer  gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
>>> "relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?
>> 
>> It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights
>> holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing 
>> funding
>> to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM.
> 
> Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone
> with enough money and other resources to game the system?
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[John Smith]

On 25 August 2011 22:26, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer  gmail.com> writes:
>
>>This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
>>"relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?
>
> It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights
> holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing 
> funding
> to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM.

Wouldn't spreading resources thinner only make it easier for someone
with enough money and other resources to game the system?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Ed Avis]

Martin Koppenhoefer  gmail.com> writes:

>This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
>"relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?

It might be better to spin off a separate organization which is the rights
holder, separate from the less contentious OSMF functions like providing funding
to keep the servers running or organizing SoTM.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2011/8/25 Frederik Ramm :
> Call me a cynic, but from my (limited) experience with other not-for-profits
> and I tend to thinkg that the amount of fear, hate, mistrust, and general
> bad karma is proportional to the size and budget of the organisation.


can't disagree with this suspicion.


> If we manage to keep OSMF small and relatively unimportant, then we'll avoid
> problems like those.


This was completely easy in the past, but is it realistic to keep OSMF
"relatively unimportant" if it is rights holder for all the data?

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
> joined the OSMF?  That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  The organization has gone downhill
ever since.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Tom Hughes]

On 25/08/11 10:15, Ed Avis wrote:


Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
joined the OSMF?  That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted,
and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever).


This is, by my understanding, the third year it has happened.

Two years ago it was, as you say, a large number of Cloudmade employees, 
and I assume that it what Steve was alluding to.


Last year it was a large number of Skobbler employees.

This year it appears to be an additional group of Skobbler employees.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[John Smith]

On 25 August 2011 19:15, Ed Avis  wrote:
> Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
> joined the OSMF?  That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted,
> and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever).

In the past OSM-F was merely supporting OSM contributors, now that
they've decided to "own" the database things are some what different,
and OSM-F has set itself up as a target.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Ed Avis]

Hasn't it happened in the past that large numbers of Cloudmade employees have
joined the OSMF?  That didn't cause the organization to be somehow subverted,
and neither will people who work for Skobbler (or Microsoft, or whoever).

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Nic Roets]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:
> Oliver Kuhn, Chief Commercial Officer of Skobbler, is of course already on
> the OSMF board and has posted that he personally believes OSM should
> concentrate on the needs of "data consumers" like his
> (http://www.abalakov.com/openstreetmap-map-data-who-cares), steering
> contributors towards projects such as addressing
> (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-July/051511.html), and
> that it could consider weakening the share-alike clause
> (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-June/003398.html).
>
> Again, there's no suggestion that Oliver has been using his OSMF position
> to push these aims, and I'm sure he wouldn't.

Well, if you are sure that he does not want push any of his issues,
you also need to consider the possibility that he wants to maintain
the status quo, i.e. block other members from pushing their issues.

Regardless of his intentions, I certainly don't see the typical
Skobbler employee as representative of the community. (Have they
opensourced any significant piece of software ?) I've collected a lot
of street addresses during the last year, but every time OSMF becomes
less representative, my motivation drops.

And the suggestions from Henk and Frederik will not solve the problem
of representation: Henk wants a 30 day waiting period before members
can vote. Frederik wants to ban the practice of sponsoring membership
fees.

As Milo said, others like wikimedia have tackled these problems.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [osmf-talk] Membership applications from Skobbler employees

[Richard Fairhurst]

[apologies for posting to talk rather than osmf-talk - very bizarrely, I
appear to have been *un*subscribed from osmf-talk upon renewing my
membership. Go figure. :) For those not following, the issue is the
application of a large number of Skobbler employees to join OSMF, shortly
before the OSMF elections. It has been suggested this would mean that ~65
of the total OSMF membership were Skobbler employees. Full thread at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/date.html]

Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> I can't speak to the specifics of this situation; I don't know
> the individuals, or the company involved, but I will say that
> on the surface, it would seem that this company has chosen
> a path which has ruffled some feathers, and I'd hope that
> this thread acts as a message to it and other companies
> to be sensitive in how they interact with the foundation,
> and the community, and to be concious of how their actions,
> whatever the intent, may appear.

+1.

In my experience (outside OSM) there are three reasons for anyone to join
a membership organisation such as OSMF:

   a) to gain a vote in the affairs of the organisation;
   b) to financially support the aims of the organisation;
   c) to receive member-only benefits.

In the particular case of OSMF, a company can achieve (b) by making a
donation (via http://donate.openstreetmap.org/ or direct to the
foundation), and indeed this is more effective as it doesn't incur the
overheads of membership. It's a well-established route: Google famously,
and generously, gave £5,000 in a recent donations drive.

That leaves (a) or (c).

For (c), the only OSMF member-only benefit, as I understand it, is reduced
admission to the State of the Map. It's very possible that Skobbler has
signed its employees up to OSMF because it's planning to fly them all over
to Denver and this works out cheaper. (Personally I would have thought
that sponsoring SotM, as Mapquest, Bing, ESRI, Waze et al are doing, would
have been more cost-effective as presumably sponsors receive a discount on
admission, but I don't know this for sure.)

Or (a), to gain a vote in the affairs of the organisation. Serge makes a
distinction "between impropriety and the appearance of impropriety", and
Steve has alluded to the reaction when many Cloudmade employees joined -
"I think you have to look at this in the context of the last time a
company paid for its employees to become members".

There is no evidence of any impropriety; the risk is an appearance of
impropriety. The question "how will this play on Slashdot?" is not a bad
one to ask.

Oliver Kuhn, Chief Commercial Officer of Skobbler, is of course already on
the OSMF board and has posted that he personally believes OSM should
concentrate on the needs of "data consumers" like his
(http://www.abalakov.com/openstreetmap-map-data-who-cares), steering
contributors towards projects such as addressing
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-July/051511.html), and
that it could consider weakening the share-alike clause
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-June/003398.html).

Again, there's no suggestion that Oliver has been using his OSMF position
to push these aims, and I'm sure he wouldn't. The risk is the appearance
of impropriety in a situation summed up as "the Skobbler CCO is on the
OSMF board; the Skobbler CCO wants OSM to concentrate on the sort of data
used by his company; Skobbler has paid for its employees to join OSMF such
that they now form a large bloc".

To avoid this appearance of impropriety, I think it would have been better
for Skobbler to instead either make a donation to OSMF or sponsor SotM.

But, again, there's nothing in the Articles preventing them from signing
up 65 members; if they want to, they're perfectly entitled to. For the
avoidance of doubt, I believe commercial support for OSM is a good thing
and am not arguing against it.

cheers
Richard




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk