[Osmf-talk] OSMF membership applications rejected
balrogg at gmail.com
Sat Aug 25 15:24:55 UTC 2012
On 25 August 2012 16:15, Henk Hoff <henk.hoff at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
> The application of both persons have been rejected. They can apply for
> membership again in the future. Looking at their recent behavior I doubt
> very strongly that another membership application by them before the AGM
> will be accepted.
> Mike's application was a simple one. However, his application raised some
> issues based on his disruptive behavior in the recent past. Adding his
> refusal to comply with the Contributor Terms of the project, the Board
> concluded to not grant him membership.
It boils down to a difference of opinion. By barring anyone who
doesn't agree with the current shape of the Contributor Terms (which
have problems that have been discussed before their introduction but
eventually accepted by those with the deciding power) the board blocks
the chance of the Contributor Terms being improved and made more
similar to those used in F/OSS projects.
I also haven't seen any intentional disruptive behaviour from Mike,
it's more a difference of opinion again. The OSMF has been claiming
that process A is good for the OSM project and the board and the
working groups seem genuinely convinced that this is in fact good for
OSM. Now anyone who still openly argues that B is better for the OSM
project will be seen as behaving disruptively by them. Which doesn't
mean that they're seen that way by the OSM community. For example
you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who agrees with the idea of the
current license change in the radius of about 400km from where I live,
among the OSM community members -- those who actually do the mapping
in this project as well as those who have analysed the legal pros and
cons of this process. The opinion on the local OSM forums here is
quite uniform, you're welcome to join and see.
Now I'm not sure I'd vote for James Michael Dupont even if I could,
and I'm not sure it's necessary for him to be on the board to be able
to change things. But I had hoped that it would give the OSM
project's community a voice and show that it is in fact a vocal &
active minority pushing the license change through and that there's
another minority (less vocal and apparently less successful) who don't
agree with what the OSMF is doing to the OSM project in this process,
or that it is to the benefit of free geodata in general.
More information about the osmf-talk