OODF Board of Managers

OODF Board of managers, See attached document related to the Knight foundation providing funding for OMF. Please review ASAP and let me know if you see reason not to execute this grant. Jascha is aware of the terms and reporting requirements of the grant and will manage to their schedule. Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open Attachment: Knight_Foundation_Grant_Agreement.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document

This looks fine to me. On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:44 PM Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > wrote: OODF Board of managers, See attached document related to the Knight foundation providing funding for OMF. Please review ASAP and let me know if you see reason not to execute this grant. Jascha is aware of the terms and reporting requirements of the grant and will manage to their schedule. Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

Thanks. My take it that it generally looks fine, though it should be shared with the OMF Board (if that hasn't already happened) so that they are aware of the conditions, which I note favor ("with an emphasis") four named cities' implementations. Nothing wrong with that -- as long as we have clear indications that (a) Jascha's confirmed with them in some way (that satisfies him) that this condition doesn't mean "the resources paid by Knight can only talk to or work with people in those four cities;" and (b) we somehow address the OMF Board's role here. (There was no OMF Board at the time of the Rockefeller grant.) When we accept one of these, we are basically entering into a contract for OMF . Now that there IS a working Board for OMF , the question comes up how they're included in the approval loop. Do you want to require just that the ED confirm to us that he's received all necessary approvals, whatever they may be? Or explicitly require him to obtain an action from the OMF Board? (If this was a SPENDING contract, then it would have to fit within their budget in order to be signed, and THAT might require their Board to act first anyway, to amend that Budget. But this is the opposite, it's an agreement to ACCEPT money.) Either way, it seems to me that, at the end when you have *signed* one for them, and it's a live contract, your confirming transmittal of *that* should be sent to the OMF Board, not just to the ED. Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, OASIS Advancing open data, code and standards for the global information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff OpenMobilityFoundation .org (new) , an OASIS-hosted open source program EU 201 9 Rolling Plan for ICT Standards : https://j.mp/EUstds2019 Borderless Cybersec Oct 2019 : DC 2018 , Prague 2017 , NYC 2017 , Tokyo 2016 , Brussels 2016 , World Bank 2015 On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > wrote: OODF Board of managers, See attached document related to the Knight foundation providing funding for OMF. Please review ASAP and let me know if you see reason not to execute this grant. Jascha is aware of the terms and reporting requirements of the grant and will manage to their schedule. Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

P.S. Did you get a license from the City of LA to countersign yet? Theoretically one was coming. Jamie On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:45 PM Jamie Clark < jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > wrote: Thanks. My take it that it generally looks fine, though it should be shared with the OMF Board (if that hasn't already happened) so that they are aware of the conditions, which I note favor ("with an emphasis") four named cities' implementations. Nothing wrong with that -- as long as we have clear indications that (a) Jascha's confirmed with them in some way (that satisfies him) that this condition doesn't mean "the resources paid by Knight can only talk to or work with people in those four cities;" and (b) we somehow address the OMF Board's role here. (There was no OMF Board at the time of the Rockefeller grant.) When we accept one of these, we are basically entering into a contract for OMF . Now that there IS a working Board for OMF , the question comes up how they're included in the approval loop. Do you want to require just that the ED confirm to us that he's received all necessary approvals, whatever they may be? Or explicitly require him to obtain an action from the OMF Board? (If this was a SPENDING contract, then it would have to fit within their budget in order to be signed, and THAT might require their Board to act first anyway, to amend that Budget. But this is the opposite, it's an agreement to ACCEPT money.) Either way, it seems to me that, at the end when you have *signed* one for them, and it's a live contract, your confirming transmittal of *that* should be sent to the OMF Board, not just to the ED. Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, OASIS Advancing open data, code and standards for the global information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff OpenMobilityFoundation .org (new) , an OASIS-hosted open source program EU 201 9 Rolling Plan for ICT Standards : https://j.mp/EUstds2019 Borderless Cybersec Oct 2019 : DC 2018 , Prague 2017 , NYC 2017 , Tokyo 2016 , Brussels 2016 , World Bank 2015 On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > wrote: OODF Board of managers, See attached document related to the Knight foundation providing funding for OMF. Please review ASAP and let me know if you see reason not to execute this grant. Jascha is aware of the terms and reporting requirements of the grant and will manage to their schedule. Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

I think the OMF Board should be notified and given the opportunity to ask questions. I think it would be best if they voted to approve it since it could have negative repercussions if not managed properly. Was this addressed in some way in their by-laws? On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:45 AM Jamie Clark < jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > wrote: Thanks. My take it that it generally looks fine, though it should be shared with the OMF Board (if that hasn't already happened) so that they are aware of the conditions, which I note favor ("with an emphasis") four named cities' implementations. Nothing wrong with that -- as long as we have clear indications that (a) Jascha's confirmed with them in some way (that satisfies him) that this condition doesn't mean "the resources paid by Knight can only talk to or work with people in those four cities;" and (b) we somehow address the OMF Board's role here. (There was no OMF Board at the time of the Rockefeller grant.) When we accept one of these, we are basically entering into a contract for OMF . Now that there IS a working Board for OMF , the question comes up how they're included in the approval loop. Do you want to require just that the ED confirm to us that he's received all necessary approvals, whatever they may be? Or explicitly require him to obtain an action from the OMF Board? (If this was a SPENDING contract, then it would have to fit within their budget in order to be signed, and THAT might require their Board to act first anyway, to amend that Budget. But this is the opposite, it's an agreement to ACCEPT money.) Either way, it seems to me that, at the end when you have *signed* one for them, and it's a live contract, your confirming transmittal of *that* should be sent to the OMF Board, not just to the ED. Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, OASIS Advancing open data, code and standards for the global information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff OpenMobilityFoundation .org (new) , an OASIS-hosted open source program EU 201 9 Rolling Plan for ICT Standards : https://j.mp/EUstds2019 Borderless Cybersec Oct 2019 : DC 2018 , Prague 2017 , NYC 2017 , Tokyo 2016 , Brussels 2016 , World Bank 2015 On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > wrote: OODF Board of managers, See attached document related to the Knight foundation providing funding for OMF. Please review ASAP and let me know if you see reason not to execute this grant. Jascha is aware of the terms and reporting requirements of the grant and will manage to their schedule. Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org Tel +1 781-425-5073 x202 Follow OASIS on: LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/OASISopen Twitter: http://twitter.com/OASISopen Facebook: http://facebook.com/oasis.open --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- /chet ---------------- Chet Ensign Chief Technical Community Steward OASIS: Advancing open source & open standards for the information society http://www.oasis-open.org Mobile: +1 201-341-1393

To cap off this thread, my other note to Jascha and Scott is appended here. Also attached is the PDF grant agreement, which I marked in a few places with highlighter just to note some requirements we'll want to monitor/ensure. Based on his spending plans and our controls I don't see much potential for problems here. But there were a few (apparent) budget allocation oddities for you guys to sort out. Note that this will fund Jascha doing a second hire. (He's already got one limited contract out on writing a draft Architecture, in fulfillment of the Rockefeller grant 12/31/19 requirement. This second position is for "user engagement," e.g. recruiting. We need to keep him using some variant of the independent contractor or similar forms that we created for his own hire. When this second one is being crafted, if you don't show it to me, please ensure that the Exhibit A Scope tracks any relevant Knight deliverables point for point. r egards Jamie ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jamie Clark < jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > Date: Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [oodf-board] Knight foundation Grant Acceptance To: Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > Cc: < oodf-board@lists.oasis-open.org >, Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org >, Cathie Mayo < cathie.mayo@oasis-open.org > Thanks. My take it that it generally looks fine, though it should be shared with the OMF Board (if that hasn't already happened) so that they are aware of the conditions, which I note favor ("with an emphasis") four named cities' implementations. Nothing wrong with that -- as long as we have clear indications that (a) Jascha's confirmed with them in some way (that satisfies him) that this condition doesn't mean "the resources paid by Knight can only talk to or work with people in those four cities;" and (b) we somehow address the OMF Board's role here. (There was no OMF Board at the time of the Rockefeller grant.) When we accept one of these, we are basically entering into a contract for OMF . Now that there IS a working Board for OMF , the question comes up how they're included in the approval loop. Do you want to require just that the ED confirm to us that he's received all necessary approvals, whatever they may be? Or explicitly require him to obtain an action from the OMF Board? (If this was a SPENDING contract, then it would have to fit within their budget in order to be signed, and THAT might require their Board to act first anyway, to amend that Budget. But this is the opposite, it's an agreement to ACCEPT money.) Either way, it seems to me that, at the end when you have *signed* one for them, and it's a live contract, your confirming transmittal of *that* should be sent to the OMF Board, not just to the ED. Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, OASIS Advancing open data, code and standards for the global information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff OpenMobilityFoundation .org (new) , an OASIS-hosted open source program EU 201 9 Rolling Plan for ICT Standards : https://j.mp/EUstds2019 Borderless Cybersec Oct 2019 : DC 2018 , Prague 2017 , NYC 2017 , Tokyo 2016 , Brussels 2016 , World Bank 2015 On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > wrote: OODF Board of managers, See attached document related to the Knight foundation providing funding for OMF. Please review ASAP and let me know if you see reason not to execute this grant. Jascha is aware of the terms and reporting requirements of the grant and will manage to their schedule. Scott... -- Scott McGrath COO scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jamie Clark < jamie.clark@oasis-open.org > Date: Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 9:19 AM Subject: Re: Please DocuSign: Knight Foundation Grant Agreement Open Mobility Foundation/ Grant #2019-59638 To: Jascha Franklin-Hodge < jascha@openmobilityfoundation.org >, Scott McGrath < scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org > Cc: Chet Ensign < chet.ensign@oasis-open.org >, Cathie Mayo < cathie.mayo@oasis-open.org > Didn't see Scott's reply, but we have conferred informally, and I think we're all on the same page. I did confirm (11/12) that OMF/OODF should be able to satisfy all of the legal requirements in the grant. I will flag a few things for Cathie and Chet just as FYIs. As discussed previously, Scott should sign , but depending on how you want to game DocuSign, that could be either signing and returning a scanned copy, or having them re-send one to Scott's email address. He should definitely be in that chain either way though , so that OASIS gets a copy of whatever change or error notices that system offers up later . PS if Jascha went ahead and signed it, just have Scott send a coiuntersignature too for OODF LLC. I did ask Scott to ask Jascha to confirm to us that: Jascha has taken whatever steps he believes are required to approve this (so that we're clearly signing at his request). Jascha will send a copy of the Grant Agreement to the Board so they're aware. (WE don't need him to talk to his Board PRIOR to signing; that's a OMF-Board-handling issue up to him. I'd guess that group would feel no need to see it before it's accepted, and maybe he did so at their Board meeting last week anyway. We just need to know that they get a copy so they're notified of the agreement terms once it's binding.) Jascha's analysis of what Knight funds can and cannot support seems correct to me, but leaving that to Scott and Cathie. Note the corporate obligation to upload reporting via a portal (in March). Jascha certainly can do that and should be primary contact, but we'll want to have an OASIS contact on their notice list getting copies as well. As with Rockefeller. I suggest that we (maybe Jascha and I? or Jascha and Scott? ) call the named grant officer contact -- some levels down from the officials that he and Seleta were wooing -- just to say hello , build the bridge, just as we did with Rockefeller. Jascha, nice to see you at your dev day last week in LA. Looked like a big success. I will send along a few other followup notes on items unrelated to Knight, but let's keep this thread on that. Cordially Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, OASIS Advancing open data, code and standards for the global information society https://www.oasis-open.org/staff OpenMobilityFoundation.org (new) , an OASIS-hosted open source program EU 201 9 Rolling Plan for ICT Standards : https://j.mp/EUstds2019 Borderless Cybersec Oct 2019 : DC 2018 , Prague 2017 , NYC 2017 , Tokyo 2016 , Brussels 2016 , World Bank 2015 Attachment: Knight_Foundation_Grant_Agreement CLARK OASIS INTERNAL NOTES.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document