[Osmf-talk] AoA Discussion

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

    at SOTM-EU, Henk gave a quick run-down of the current AoA review 
discussion. The current status is here on the Wiki:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/Articles_of_Association_Review

Henk asked us to contribute ideas/opinions here on the mailing list.

I have two issues that are important to me; both concern corporate 
influence on OSMF.

Firstly, corporate members. Wiki says:

"Next to the current individual membership also corporate membership 
will be introduced. The rights of corporate members are the same as the 
individual members, only the membership fee will be different (= higher)."

While I think that it is a good idea to avoid OSM-affine companies to 
sign up all their programmers as individual members on the corporate 
credit card, I would like to remove any rights from corporate members.

This is quite common in Germany, where many organisations take "normal 
members" (an individual with full voting rights and all), and what we 
call a "Foerdermitglied", a "sponsoring member". These pay more and have 
no rights, but they can proudly claim to be a "Foerdermitglied" 
everywhere, and for most of them that is what counts.

So instead of having corporate members and normal members, I'd say: Only 
natural persons can become normal members with full rights; but 
everyone, including corporate entities, can become a sponsoring member 
(or whatever other name we choose).

I think it is ok if the commercial world has an influence on OSM but I 
wouldn't want this as part of OSMF. Commercial entities can never be 
part of our community because they are not human beings; I would much 
prefer the commercial players to found their own thing - say, the "OSM 
business alliance" or whatever - and then the OSMF board could every now 
and again invite a speaker for the business alliance to their meetings 
if they find it appropriate.

Secondly, board members.

I'm well known for always saying I don't want people from a commercial 
OSM background on the board, and I have often been criticised for that.

In the discussion at SOTM-EU, Henk hinted at the idea that there could 
be specific places on the board elected by corporate members only. That 
may just have been a glitch; the Wiki only says

"Are all positions on the board elected by members? Or can different 
groups of members/voters elect certain boardmembers. E.g. 4 boardmembers 
are elected by members, 2 boardmembers are elected by local chapters, 2 
board members are appointed by board (e.g. for specific knowledge)"

But if deep down inside the AoA working group someone really thinks that 
there should be such a thing like a special representative of the 
corporate members on the board, I vehemently object to that.

The main fear I have is not that members of OSM-related commercial 
organisations are evil or that there might be conflicts of interest 
(even though I'm sure there will be); it is that the organisation for 
whom they work gives them more backing and more power and so they will 
outperform and outweigh the other board members.

Imagine a board consisting of 6 hobbyists with a full-time, 
OSM-unrelated job, plus one person working for, say, Google. Imagine 
that Google allows this person to spend a notable amount of their paid 
working day on OSMF matters, or maybe even occasionally use Google 
resources for legal advice or a quick research job. Now everyone knows 
we're a doocracy; he who does the work gets to say how it is done. If 
one person on the board can do four times as much work as everyone else, 
then that one person will automatically be four times as important; and 
with that person, their employer.

There might be some who say "good for us if Google sponsors OSMF work", 
but I wouldn't see it that way. It would be too near the core for my taste.

This is a very difficult subject because of course not everyone who is 
employed by someone automatically represents them on the board. All 
board members are likely to have a full-time job, and who are we to 
decide who of them is on the board for themselves and who is there as a 
representative of their company? Do we have to ask people for their 
corporate hierarchy level to make a decision, or probe their brains to 
find out if their career is more important to them than OSM? I have no 
good answer to that, and that's why I'd prefer to give all commercial 
OSM use a wide berth when it comes to OSMF board members, just to be on 
the safe side.

Bye
Frederik