[Osmf-talk] sponsored membership

Donal Hunt donal.hunt at gmail.com
Wed Sep 27 16:20:37 UTC 2017

One other comment: Making it easy to gift membership has lots of benefits.
e.g. you pay the fee for the year and get a token that someone else can use
to register. Would need to ensure that it wasn't open to abuse but covers
the original use case I feel.


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Donal Hunt <donal.hunt at gmail.com> wrote:

> This seems to somewhat overlap with the thread on the Membership Waiver
> Program. Allowing members to support such programs financially when joining
> / renewing may be a way to offset the cost to the organisation. e.g. pay
> 10% extra and support program X.
> The individual programs would be able to set their own criteria and report
> on status of buy-in / engagement levels.
> d.
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 27 September 2017, joost schouppe wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > So a very simple proposition: make it possible for a person to pay
>> > the price of two memberships, with the express condition that someone
>> > is allowed to join for free in return.
>> > The safest is possibly to just allow donating into a pool, and then
>> > have people applying for the open spaces created in that pool.
>> >
>> > The alternative would be that the donator chooses to whom it goes.
>> > But that might seem paternalistic and opens the door to worries of
>> > influence-buying, especially if institutional donors would open their
>> > purses.
>> I had thought about this in context of my suggestion for making the
>> membership fee optional as well - kind of as a cost neutral version of
>> my suggestion.
>> The problem for me is that allowing the donors to choose who they
>> sponsor is really problematic.  The most important task for OSMF
>> members is to vote on resolutions and elect the board and even the mere
>> implication there is some duty of those who got a sponsored membership
>> to vote in the interest of their sponsor would be unacceptable IMO.
>> And as a potential sponsor i would not want my money to be given to an
>> applicant based on the subjective selection by a third party (i.e. the
>> MWG or whatever committee evaluates the applications).
>> So the only way i would see this working is
>> a) based on an anonymous pool.
>> b) granted based on transparent, objective and neutral criteria for the
>> applicants.  This could be either on a first come - first served basis
>> with constant requirements, i.e. there would be a waiting list in case
>> there are more qualified applicants than there are sponsors or with
>> dynamic requirements (the smaller the sponsor pool the higher the
>> thresholds for being accepted as member without paying a fee).
>> As Martin indicated you would also need to think about if to give
>> renewals of previously sponsored memberships priority over new
>> applicants.
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170927/ed44c250/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list