Nick Black nick at blacksworld.net
Fri Jul 31 17:36:49 UTC 2009

On 31 Jul 2009, at 02:13, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:

> El día Thursday 30 July 2009 15:39:05, Nick Black dijo:
>> For the first point, representing the wishes of the community, I
>> favour an approach that strengthens the Foundation by expanding its
>> user base. By the end of 2010 we should be counting foundation  
>> members
>> in the 10,000s.
> IIRC, OSM's userbase growth is exponential. Foundation membership  
> growth is
> *not*.

Your very right - that's something we need to change and I see Local  
Chapter as the mechanism for this change.

>> These members spread all around the world, some affiliated to OSM-F  
>> Local
>> Chapters will provide a strong base to elect the OSM-F board.
> Not if we still don't know how closely or loosely tied will the  
> chapters be
> attached to the OSMF.

We know that the Local Chapters will at least offer their members the  
opportunity to join the OSM-F and that they will be carrying out  
promotional activities, aiming to build support for OpenStreetMap.

>> [...] The counter measures proposed here - limiting the number of
>> representatives from one company on the Board and other similar
>> measures - just wouldn't work.
> Just for the record, I support RWeait's proposal (maybe 1 member per  
> company
> is excessive, so I'd say 2 or 3).
> I don't think that the problem is about one commercial company  
> gaining virtual
> control of the OSMF (they'd be risking a virtual Bastille), but about
> **unconsciously** leveraging OSM towards one market (smartphone  
> users, fleet
> management, paleo-geo, mapping agencies' tools). And I do NOT want  
> to see
> this beautiful community turn into an oligarchy, even in the long  
> term.

Unconsciously?  This is getting close to FUD.  I'd hoped that what  
you've heard from Mikel and from me about the way we balance our  
responsibilities to OpenStreetMap against our other interests.  I'm  
all for having this debate, but it gets a bit wearing when people are  
suggesting that Board members are compromised because we take part in  
other, related activities.  Especially when we've established, I hope,  
that as Gerv pointed out, having Board members for the OSM-F who are  
active in other projects related to geo is a sign of a healthy  
community.  If someone is the best person for the job, they are the  
best person for the job.  We should not discriminate based on the  
company they work for.

> And don't take me bad, Nick, but...
>> Some of the areas I want to focus on in 2009-2010 are:
>> -Growing the OSM-F to support OpenStreetMap as a global organization
>> -Setting up Local Chapters around the world
> You promised local chapters by February and it's August now.... ;-)

Its a big personal disappointment that we haven't go things going  
sooner.  I know that guys like you and Simone are ready to sign on the  
line.  But the last thing I want to do is have a local chapters  
agreement that isolates some members of the community.  Not everyone  
is happy with the format of Local Chapters.  We had a great meeting at  
SOTM in which we made good progress and I hope we'll be able to move  
things forward as soon as we can. I don't like making excuses, but  
SOTM really took it out of me and the other OSM-F guys who were  
involved.  Sadly, local chapters got dropped.  What I can propose is  
that we start a wiki page where people can list the issues they have  
with the current agreement and we can more forward.  If you (Ivan)  
could start the page it would be a great help :-)


> -- 
> Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>
> Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta
> compleja.
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

Nick Black
nick at blacksworld.net

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list