<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Thanks for bringing this up for public comment, Tobias and the board.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’ve followed the conversation here since yesterday and I’m broadly sympathetic to Kathleen and Darafei’s contributions. We know from last year’s global community survey that the overall community beyond the voting membership does not rate takeover protection highly compared to technical stability and outreach (source: <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/migurski/diary/395962" class="">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/migurski/diary/395962</a>). We also know that if takeover protection is the goal, then limits based on resourcing will not effectively stop a motivated hostile entity as Kathleen pointed out. The board’s choice to expend effort on this feels like an isolationist turn, ironic and inappropriate for an open map.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">From the proposal, would you be able to provide more detail on this section?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">> Why 42 days? If we measure contributions in mapping days by OSMF members who map (83%), roughly half of them map more than 42 days per year. We would expect a “slightly exceptional” contribution in terms of mapping days.<br class=""><br class="">This seems to mean that you’re looking for "exceptional" contributions even by the standards of current membership. If retroactively applied, this would disqualify almost 3 out of 5 current members immediately (100 - 83/2). What would be the days-mapping requirement for other target values, for example if we wanted to disqualify 50%, 25%, or some other percentage of the current membership? How would these numbers change based on the "42 days total" vs. "42 days per year" modification?<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">> Mapping days is not perfect, but we need a benchmark that is objective, easy to verify, and simple for us to measure and implement.<br class=""><br class="">The problems inherent in any simple and verifiable metric may be a sign that the goal is not a good one to pursue.<br class=""><br class="">-mike.</div><br class=""><div class="">
<div>----------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">michal migurski- contact info and pgp key:<br class="">sf/ca <a href="http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html" class="">http://mike.teczno.com/contact.html</a></div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 13, 2022, at 8:25 AM, Tobias Knerr <<a href="mailto:osm@tobias-knerr.de" class="">osm@tobias-knerr.de</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi all,<br class=""><br class="">at the 2020 AGM, a 79% majority of the membership asked the board to propose prerequisites for membership in the OSM Foundation which would ensure that all applicants for membership have made a reasonable amount of contributions to OSM (not necessarily through mapping).[1]<br class=""><br class="">We would like to ask for your feedback to a first draft of this proposal which you can read below. It uses a definition for "reasonable amount of contributions" that is comparable to the active contributor membership[2], but has lower requirements: 42 days of contributions ever instead of 42 days per year. Existing memberships would not be affected by this change.<br class=""><br class="">The 2020 resolution called for a membership vote on this topic in 2021. Unfortunately, the board didn't produce a proposal in time for the 2021 AGM and we would like to apologize for this delay. Our current plan is to have the resolution ready for a general meeting on April 30, 2022.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""># Potential text of the resolution<br class=""><br class="">Using its powers under §15 of the Articles of Association, the board of directors shall reject applications for membership or associate membership if the applicant has not demonstrably contributed to OpenStreetMap on at least 42 days. The specific form of the contributions (e.g. mapping vs. non-mapping) does not make a difference for the fulfilment of these prerequisites. The board may delegate verification and rejection of membership applications to a working group.<br class=""><br class="">## Rationale:<br class=""><br class="">This change would more firmly establish the OSMF as an entity serving the people and communities who create OpenStreetMap. By ensuring that votes in Foundation elections and resolutions are cast by OpenStreetMap contributors, it becomes more likely that the Foundation will continue to support the the project well.<br class=""><br class="">The criteria take inspiration from the fee waiver (known as active contributor membership) to allow using a similar implementation. Unlike the fee waiver, eligibility will be evaluated as a one-time step during application for membership, rather than annually. As such, members do not have to fear losing their membership if their activity fluctuates or declines. Existing memberships won't be affected.<br class=""><br class="">## Considerations:<br class=""><br class="">This one-time check applies to all member applications including those that pay the regular £15 membership fee.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""># Footnotes<br class=""><br class="">[1] <a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/2020/Suggested_resolutions#Vote_3:_Work_on_membership_prerequisites" class="">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/2020/Suggested_resolutions#Vote_3:_Work_on_membership_prerequisites</a><br class="">[2] <a href="https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/" class="">https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/</a><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">osmf-talk mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" class="">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>