Hi,
Peter Miller wrote:
> Note that Frederick is suggesting only a 'go/no go' vote without an
> option to change the document to avoid Steve's concern
Actually, I haven't even got to the stage where I was making suggestions
- I was still trying to understand what the Foundation's plans are, a
On 24 Jan 2009, at 20:26, Grant Slater wrote:
Liz wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me)
who's
listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict
of
interest.
That's the way Australian law works.
Liz wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
>
>> You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
>> listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
>> interest.
>>
>
> That's the way Australian law works.
> If I am on a Board (which I a
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Dair Grant wrote:
> You argue that anyone with a commercial interest in OSM (e.g., me) who's
> listed on the {{PD-user}} page (me again) has a potential conflict of
> interest.
That's the way Australian law works.
If I am on a Board (which I am) and some other aspect of my lif
On 24 Jan 2009, at 13:11, Dair Grant wrote:
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC
>> in relation
>> to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a
>> director of
>> a company that could well benefit from the OSM projec
2009/1/24 Rob Myers :
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
>> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
>> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
>> remove your data shortly'. Clearly this a
On 24 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Rob Myers wrote:
> Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
>> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
>> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
>> remove your data sh
Peter Miller wrote:
> Without a public vote the board are effectively saying to each and
> every one of use individually: 'accept these new terms or please
> leave the community now and don't slam the door - oh, and we will
> remove your data shortly'. Clearly this approach will result in
Peter Miller wrote:
> Is there not a large potential conflict of interest between SteveC in relation
> to his driving this change within the Foundation and also being a director of
> a company that could well benefit from the OSM project not offering a full set
> of services? I don't know, but I c
Comments on the minutes of the 23rd Dec board meeting
It is good that the minutes are now posted. I was however disappointed
to get them the day of the next meeting and a month after the meeting
in question.
It is good to see that the November minutes have been approved.
Sub-working groups
10 matches
Mail list logo
