[Osmf-talk] Death and evolution

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi everyone,

* Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> [140926 12:47]:
> On 09/26/2014 11:29 AM, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>> [..]
>> The only way we can evade that fate is to evolve. Not like before,
>> but aggressively, fast and visibly. We have 3 to 6 years, in which we
>> either build a massive, large-scale and well-funded structure like
>> Wikimedia Foundation

> I am not sure if that future OSM project of which you speak, which is
> controlled by massive foundation with a massive budget and therefore
> massively dependent on donors and sponsors of all kinds, is really one
> worth striving for. There's lots of people in OSM whom I don't agree
> with and it's fine, it's not like we have to fight over control of the
> massive central body that defines the project. We can "agree to
> disagree". Would this still be so in your scenario?

> One thing I love about OSM is that, to a large degree, these are human
> beings who have decided to do something that improves their life in one
> way or another. Sure, we can collect money from Western governments to
> lobby the Chinese government to allow us to spread the idea of open
> geodata to potential users in China - this being just one of myriad
> things that a massive OSM foundation would likely start doing - but is
> that really at the core of OSM?

> Don't get me wrong, I love it when individual OSMers become OSM
> advocates and infect their social circles with the OSM idea. But does
> that mean that I want to found an advocacy organisation whose role it is
> to spread the gospel of OSM to non-believers around the planet? Not
> really. But that's exactly what such organisations are bound to do, and
> what WMF does, among tons of other things.

> Do I want a large foundation where power and control are concentrated,
> where professional power people vie for control of the board, and where
> the board in turn is responsible for the livelihood of hundreds or
> thousands of employees? Where decisions that we can now afford to leave
> to the community have to be elevated to whatever executive level because
> suddenly a large donor might disagree with our childcare tagging? Where
> hundreds of thousands of $$$ are spent for a developing a new editor
> that has exactly the kinds of features the board wants? (And while we're
> at it, maybe we need to slap on some DRM so that people cannot simply
> add plugins that circumvent our official tagging rules...?)

> I can see your concerns but I think your call for building a "massive,
> large-scale and well-funded structure" are un-imaginative; even if doing
> so would ensure the survival of something, that something might not be
> OpenStreetMap any more.

I'm afraid we might not have much of a choice here. In some way we (the
OSM project and community) are a victim of our own success. OSM has now
reached a state where quite a few people have their livelyhood depend
on the continuing success of the project, and corporations small and
big have put up resources to invest in the use of the project. These
people can simply not afford to have the project going on an erratic
course determined by the moods of a small group of people.
So, IMHO, either "we" manage to strengthen the foundation by giving
directions to the foundation in which way we want the project to evolve,
and give the foundation the means to achieve these goals by e.g.
donating money, ask the board to start fund raising campaigns
etc., OR people with a commercial interest will try to take over the
project (which the project would probably not survive). So if we want
to keep OSM as a project that for many is a hobby with positive side
effects for humanity in general, or their personal way of making this
world a better place, we will have to strengthen the foundation and
the foundation board to give it the means to balance the different
interests and expectations that people have in the project.

Wolfgang