[Osmf-talk] Budget for 2016

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Sat May 28 13:12:03 UTC 2016


To the treasurer: treasurer at osmfoundation.org currently Frederik Ramm.

Simon

Am 27.05.2016 um 20:50 schrieb john whelan:
> I've stumbled across an organisation with some money whom do I direct them to if they wish to make a donation? > > Thanks John > > On 8 May 2016 at 11:39, martin wass
<martinwass at mykolab.ch <mailto:martinwass at mykolab.ch>> wrote: >
>
> On 08/05/16 13:35, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > On Sunday 08 May 2016, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >>> While it is true that many OSM-data users never get to see the
> >>> osm.org <http://osm.org> site, the most motivated and likely to
> donate ones
> >>> definitely visit it regularly.
> >>
> >> Those are most likely our mappers (as opposed to those who only "use"
> >> OSM and don't otherwise participate).
> >>
> >> Our mappers are already doing very important work for us. I would
> >> like to avoid milking them for cash in addition to the countless
> >> hours of their spare time they're already giving to OSM. If ways can
> >> be found that make the users of OSM pay the bill, rather than the
> >> makers, I would be very much in favour.
>
> > Not sure if i have already made this suggestion here in the past or on
> ly
> > elsewhere but one possible approach to putting finances on a solid yet
>
> > broad basis would be to offer a 'supporting membership' for normal
> > people to provide support for the project in financial form on a
> > regular basis.
>
> > My idea would be to reduce the basic membership fee (to something like
>
> > 5-10 GBP) and thereby broadining participation in the OSMF (which as
> > likely everyone will agree would be desirable) and at the same time
> > offer a supporting membership for something like 50 GBP.  This would b
> e
> > without any formal benefits but it would be clear that anyone who can
> > afford it and who benefits from what OSM offers is expected to sign up
>
> > for this type of membership, especially if they do not actively
> > participate in the project (i.e. are mere users).
>
> > IMO having 500 supporting members each contributing 50 GBP would be mu
> ch
> > more desirable than having 5 corporate members each with 5000 GBP -
> > furthermore having corporate members with significant contributions
> > seems much less problematic to me if there is also a solid basis from
> > other sources.
>
> > Yes, getting these 500 would not be easy but there are ways to encoura
> ge
> > people, even without being overly annoying.  And if ultimately most of
>
> > the supporting members turn out to be active mappers that would IMO no
> t
> > be a problem - if active community members want to finance the OSMF wh
> o
> > would seriously want to tell them they should not?
>
> > The most important measure to get more financial contributions from an
> y
> > side is to show the money is well spent of course - publishing and
> > openly discussing the budget is well working in that direction.
>
> > Another completely different approach would be based on the quite comm
> on
> > practice of companies to donate a certain percentage of their earnings
>
> > to charity and to advertise this as an incentive to buy from them or d
> o
> > business with them.  It would not be unreasonable to expect companies
> > making use of OSM in their work to regularly donate a certain
> > percentage of their earnings to support the project.  This approach
> > would be different from a corporate memebership in a number of ways:
>
> > - it would not be a fixed upfront payment but an afterwards donation
> > that dynamically adjusts to how the business goes.
> > - the incentive to do this would not be benefits received by the OSMF
> > but to be able to advertise this as an advantage to customers and to
> > comply with the expectations of the customer base in this regard.  So
> > the OSMF would not primarily try to convince corporations to sign up
> > for a memebership but to convince customers of OSM based services in
> > general that pledging a certain percentage of earning to the OSMF can
> > be expected from a company offering such services or that higher price
> s
> > for OSM related services should be accepted if the company offering
> > them does such a pledge.
>
>
> Hope I've got this email list thingy right.
> Anyway,
>
> Folk donate/support things like OSM because they want to feel good, eg
> in the UK, the National Trust, the British Mountaineering Council etc,
> not because of any purported benefits, which in many cases are not taken
> up anyway. What is important, I think, is for people to be know that OSM
> exists as an organisation that deserves and needs financial support from
> the public and that there is an easy way to make payments. Visibility is
> key. At the moment most of the people who would want to support OSM do
> not understand what it is or how it is currently funded. The map is
> 'just there', like so much of the Web. I think public understanding is
> the key issue which faces any large scale fund raising.
>
> Martin W
> >     _______________________________________________ >     osmf-talk
mailing list >     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
<mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> >    
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > > > > >
_______________________________________________ > osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org >
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20160528/5b21d7f8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20160528/5b21d7f8/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list