[Osmf-talk] Elections: Avoid Mandate Creep

Oliver Kühn oliver.kuehn at skobbler.com
Wed Aug 31 10:28:49 UTC 2011

Am 31.08.2011 11:29, schrieb Lars Kotthoff:
> I guess for me the real question is whether there are currently
> problems with OSM that can only be solved within the context of a
> vision -- either because there are several options depending on the big
> picture or because the solution needs to be implemented as part of a
> long term strategy.
Here is a picture how you should see it: Consider OSM as a SDK (Software
Development Toolkit) - or take a cloud service if the SDK is not hip
enough. Nobody tells you what to do with the SDK - it is up to the user
respectively developer. The more is done with the SDK the better - the
same applies for 3rd party extensions . However, there are many options
to make the SDK more or less attractive beyond "features": legal
restriction (when combining with 3rd party solutions), legal risks when
applying the offering (what happens in case of copyright violation in
the code or data), conferences and many more.

While during the initial years of OpenStreetMap there was no competition
for contributors (project members) as OpenStreetMap was the single
project of its kind, now there is MapMaker and co. Attractiveness (in
comparison to similar projects) of the offering becomes an important
issue. The question is who "managing" the attractiveness respectively
does the attractiveness needs to be managed? The project or the
foundation or both jointly? Will project members not just go where the
most attractive project is?

The landscape of OSM has changed. There is a lack of discussion how to
deal with it. It does not necessarily need to be discussed in the
foundation but it should be discussed. It does not mean that there
necessarily need to be change. It just need to be a conscious decision
how to deal with a changing landscape.


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list