[Talk-GB] Defibrillator Mapping
It was suggested that trying to increase our mapping of public Defibrillators would be a good think. After a bit of digging, it seems that Ambulance Services typically maintain a list of locations, with a view to informing people about them if a 999 call comes in nearby where one might be useful. The different services seem to take quite different views on these lists. My local service (East of England) actively publicise their list (http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get-involved/Community-Public-Access-Defibrillators.htm) on the grounds that raising awareness of the locations will make it more likely that someone will know about and find a defibrillator in an emergency. Other services have refused FOI requests on the (IMO spurious) grounds that publicising the list will make thefts / vandalism more likely, and out of date information may lead to people wasting time in an emergency. Anyway, I've taken the East of England list from http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/Get%20involved/CPADs/CPAD%20List.pdf , and done a comparison with the OSM data. A rough and ready tool can be found at http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/defib/progress/ for any other locals who want to use it. We've got a small number of locations they haven't, and some of their postcodes may not be quite right. But there are a lot on their list that aren't mapped yet! Regarding tagging, it seems that a lot of the cabinets have a reference number on the outside, so I'd suggest recording that in the ref=* tag. Also, I think a description of the location would be useful (e.g. "Outside wall of McDonalds, facing Store 21") to help people find the defibrillator when they need it. I've been putting something like that in a location=* key. In terms of getting more data, I've put in FOI requests to the East and West Midlands Ambulance Services for starters, so we'll see what line they take... Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Chapter Directors' Powers
On 22/04/16 12:14, Brian Prangle wrote: *Full powers*. Standard boilerplate text. Easy to do. Downside is that removing powers may require alterations to AoA, and furthermore restricting Directors' powers is quite likely to end up being contentious. Any such process will appear to be a group of members not trusting the Directors. Anything other than this suggests to me that there is something fundamentally wrong in the way that directors are chosen. All the others seem to imply that there is a group of members that doesn't trust the directors ab initio! It would basically be asking for the directors to be figure heads, in which case you should have only enough directors to cover for deaths and loss of mental capacity. In particular, note that director and manager are two different roles. If you want people to make the top level decisions, make them directors. If you just want them to implement a policy, make them managers. (Executive directors wear both hats, although, for quoted companies, I believe that the City prefers there to be some non-executive ones.) 2. *No powers*. Powers need to be conferred explicitly by the Members. This is the current draft. Downside is that it is likely to limit Directors far too much. Such limitation is likely to be particularly troublesome at the outset. In my view, the only way of correctly representing this is make all the members directors. I'm not sure whether there are legal limits on the number of directors, and some members may be either legally barred from being a director or unacceptable to people like insurers. It would put the directors in an impossible position they could face criminal charges, and/or being banned from being a director, because of responsibilities that they held, but not have the powers to mitigate the offences. 3. *No powers except those needed for Directors to fulfill legal & fiduciary duties*. Basically an additional clause added to current draft. This is an attempt to allow Directors to do necessary things but not unnecessary ones. Likely to readily twisted for any purpose. This potentially covers rather a lot of powers. The core functions are those normally delegated to a company secretary, although the directors maintain responsibility. Also, remember that ultimately, if the directors run amok, the members will need to take out injunctions in the civil courts. Unless you believe they would be prepared to do so, the AoA is essentially unenforceable. (Although what is in the AoA also has an impact on the tax status of the company.) Also, in an organisation like this, less than 10% of members will take any role in governance, except for rubber stamping resolutions proposed by the board. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Chapter Directors' Powers
Hi everyone As promised - here's a discussion on the issue Jerry proposed a number of scenarios which we discussed: 1. *Full powers*. Standard boilerplate text. Easy to do. Downside is that removing powers may require alterations to AoA, and furthermore restricting Directors' powers is quite likely to end up being contentious. Any such process will appear to be a group of members not trusting the Directors. 2. *No powers*. Powers need to be conferred explicitly by the Members. This is the current draft. Downside is that it is likely to limit Directors far too much. Such limitation is likely to be particularly troublesome at the outset. 3. *No powers except those needed for Directors to fulfill legal & fiduciary duties*. Basically an additional clause added to current draft. This is an attempt to allow Directors to do necessary things but not unnecessary ones. Likely to readily twisted for any purpose. 4. *Full powers limited for a term*. As current draft but Directors given full powers until the first AGM. Directors would be expected to propose which powers they need at the first AGM. 5. *Full powers, renewable at the AGM*. Again slightly limiting powers & putting onus on Directors to use them responsibly. Downside is that if powers are not renewed then back in same problem area of 2. 6. *Powers need to fulfill obligations & resolution of the members*. A variant of 3, but phrased so that if the Membership votes for everyone to have a pony; Directors are implicitly granted such powers as needed to acquire & distribute said ponies. We eventually came down in favour of No 5. We arrived there by rejecting no 1 Full Powers which is the standard template in the incorporation documents, as it went against the results of the initial survey conducted by Rob We rejected the polar opposite: no 2 No powers as being just too limiting- Directors wouldn't even be able to buy a postage stamp Next we rejected no 3 Legal and fiduciary duties only, mainly on the basis of being too cumbersome and on similar grounds to rejecting no 2 So it came down to a choice between 4,5 and 6. How to balance the desire expressed in the survey to be member-led with the legal requirements of the Companies Act and at the same time have an organisation that is not run on the basic premise of not trusting the Directors you've elected? The arguments were finely balanced but ultimately it was felt that 4 and 6 would make the organisation too inwardly focussed and might act as a disincentive to anyone wanting to take on the work of a Director. So we opted for 5 as requiring the least bureaucratice effort but requiring an active membership and open processes with an implicit assumption that we trust each other - at least for the first year ;-) However there was still some discomfort with this ( notwithstanding the standard legal safeguards open to members to challenge Directors' decisions contained elsewhere in the AoA) so it was agreed that an additional draft clause was prepared to try and encompass the aspiration expressed in the survey. So here goes: "In exercising their powers Directors shall be expected to take due cognizance of the participatory, consensus-driven, open, and collaborative methods and culture of the volunteers of the OpenStreetMap project." How might this work? Perhaps at each Directors' meeting every item could be tested against this clause and those items that are not administrative and need the attention of this clause should be identified and the Directors acrivate such consultation, discussion etc they feel necessary to reach a decision. Regards Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK chapter
Hi everyone Last night's concall made some good progress: there are no minutes (Greg we missed you!), but here is a summary of decisions and contentions 1. Name to appear on incorporation documents will be OpenStreetMap United Kingdom Community Interest Company. No doubt in everyday use this will get shortened to OpenStreetMap UK, but our legal name will be the full monty 2. Drafting needed to ensure that co-option of Directors is subject to the same maximum (15) as elected Directors 3.Drafting needed for Directors election timetable 4. Removed all clauses (para 40) relating to member organisations ( these will be covered by Associate Members) 5. Can't remember what we decided on natural persons being Associate Members 6. After the meeting thought: do we need to insert a clause with an obligation to keep a register of Associate Members ( as OSMF has in its AoA)? 7. AGMs were agreed - timing as per draft 8. Incorporation Document CIC36 Community Interest Statementneeds drafting - Brian to prepare a draft 9. Founding members - more are needed urgently - there's no subscription set at this time. Remember that the first General Meeting will be held soon after incorporation where the Directors listed for incorporation will all resign for new ones to be appointed by the membership and various matters will be discussed and agreed which aren't appropriate in incorporation documents(e.g subscription rates). If you're not a founding member I guess legally you can't participate. Send your full name and address to osmuk at nomoregrapes.com (this is Greg Marler ) 9. Powers of Directors. This was a contentious issue and took up most of the meeting. We agreed a way forward but there was considerabe discomfort about the outcome. It's fundamental to the organisation so deserves a wider discussion: expect a separate email and discussion shortly. 10 Next concall Thursday 28 April 8pm Anyone who was present at the concall please add or correct Regards Brian ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
