[Osmf-talk] What is the OSMF?

Daniel Kastl daniel at georepublic.de
Mon Oct 1 11:46:32 UTC 2012

HI Mikel,

I think there are quite a few people who prefer the "minimal" of OSMF.
Well, I have no strong opinion about this.

But in my opinion OSMF (or what you propose) doesn't need to be so much
"centralized" organization. Because often centralized means based in
North-America or Europe with often the same people involved. That's not
only the case for OSM but for many open source projects as well. And there
are reason for this, for example the language barrier.

There are "global" cases like Apple, but most promotion is done locally:
local communities in France, Germany, Japan, Philippines, etc. do a lot or
promotion and are quite successful, I think. So better let local chapters
act on behalf of OSMF and help them if they need support.


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel_maron at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Thinking about this more broadly, there are clearly two main positions
> about the role of OSMF, the laissez-faire and the proactive. There's
> definitely a more sensible reality in between, but the discussion of
> anything in particular polarizes the outlooks.
> I'd really like to know what we really think. But we have no way of
> understanding our own views on this systematically. No way to survey
> membership, or an agreed strategy. It would be great to have these
> processes.
> But perhaps we should just accept the OSMF is what it is. Minimal
> organization to legally and technically hold OSM resources.
> And start another organization, with a real mandate to promote OSM. Maybe
> one among businesses, another governments. Just a thought.
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> *To:* Mark Iliffe <mark at markiliffe.co.uk>
> *Cc:* osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> *Sent:* Monday, October 1, 2012 11:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Osmf-talk] a receding opportunity
> Hi,
> On 10/01/12 11:38, Mark Iliffe wrote:
> > It would all be too easy for an inquisitive journalist to start to look
> > deeper - "Maybe Apple was good, the data is at fault...". We can't talk
> > for the other data users, but we can speak for ourselves, not doing so
> > just seems the wrong thing to do. In that we could also help prevent
> > minor licence violations in future.
> I didn't want to write a posting that said we should remain silent about
> anything. If it came across like that then it was a mistake.
> I was arguing against any special or even proactive treatment of Apple by
> ourselves. Mikel sounded as if he wanted to invest time in investigative
> work: What does Apple do exactly, how could we perhaps help them, they may
> not talk to us but if we try hard enough maybe we can pry open some kind of
> channel to them.
> Whereas my position is: We're here, we're listening, but if you don't
> wanna talk then you don't have to. That's why I mentioned the license;
> unlike with commercial geodata, where I'm pretty sure someone like Apple
> will talk to those they buy data from before using it, Apple is within
> their rights to take our data and not talk to us if they so please.
> Bye
> Frederik
> -- Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09"
> E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

Georepublic UG & Georepublic Japan
eMail: daniel.kastl at georepublic.de
Web: http://georepublic.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20121001/044126ae/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list