<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 26.09.2014 18:38, schrieb Clifford
Snow:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:45 AM,
Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div id=":3on" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">In the
past two years the OSMF has not received a single
funding<br>
request, project proposal or similar. In my book that
doesn't really<br>
amount to trying hard at all.</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
Doesn't the lack of a single funding request raise some
concern? Have we asked why? Do we have barriers that we are
not even aware of? <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I wrote this is not new and I've pointed it out here before. <br>
<br>
Obviously we could only fund very small projects without going
outside either for specific donations, or getting funding from an
outside source. <br>
<br>
For a typical company there is likely no real benefit in funnelling
such funds through the OSMF, but if an individual developer has this
killer idea, at least asking the OSMF would not seem to be very
outlandish.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I agree with Pawel. There is obviously
a need for development as shown by the success of iD. Why
didn't we fund that project? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Because MapBox already had secured funds to do something in that
direction? I would have found it very difficult to argue for a
parallel development out of spite, in the end MB built on something
that had already been started by the community so the question did
not arise . Don't forget that this goes back more than two years.<br>
<br>
And I would further note that we actually have a deployed new
editor, something the "other way of doing things" aka the WMF has
not yet managed to pull off yet.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">We complain about Mapbox, yet what have
we done? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Zverik was complaining about MapBox, not "we". Historically large
parts of OSMs central system software has been written by developers
employed by companies in the OSM ecosystem, no change there, the
main difference is that MapBox's marketing is better.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Having an active Board that sets
direction with clear goals to me is a preferred to the current
state of evolution. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You forget that there are people from many different cultural
backgrounds that participate in OSM, many do not subscribe to your
specific wishes.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">I think a number of us are looking for
candidates to step forward to lead OSM. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
See above.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Recent emails point to challenges that
OSMF should be tackling, such as diversity. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
OSM is, by its very nature, a very diverse project with people
participating around the world with very many different cultural
backgrounds, descent and value systems (of which the English
speaking part of the community is only a small minority). <br>
<br>
OSM is at its best when the contributors are real locals and not
helicoptered in. Given that, it is only enlightened self-interest to
keep any barriers to entry as low as reasonably possible. We are
not perfect and the likely very low female participation (~3%)
implies that we are not tapping in to the largest potential source
of contributors. I would suggest studying the publications on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cartography.tuwien.ac.at/fem2map/">http://cartography.tuwien.ac.at/fem2map/</a> yourself on barriers to
participation in OSM and not rely on third hand interpretations.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADAoPLpXJ-2KZKHU_vmwGYmS9pG5VLZ_T+_5hH+TJoMzx2KqCg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Instead of waiting for for profit
corporations to develop tools, we fund that development. </div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
I don't think "waiting" characterizes the situation correctly, there
is a number of essentially finished developments in the queue for
integration that have bunched up a bit due to reasons not directly
related to developing the features. In any case for-profits,
non-profits, individual and groups can all contribute on the same
terms and do. And while just a gut feeling, I suspect that we never
have had such a wide contributor base to the core systems as we have
now. <br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>