[Osmf-talk] Our governance and our identity

Gregory sotm at livingwithdragons.com
Sat Dec 15 11:57:49 UTC 2018

How does OSMF and the board currently make use of local chapters. Is this
what the advisory board is for? If so, is it being used for that?

Why is OSM US still not an official local chapter? Could HOT become a
"non-geographic" local chapter, or would it's best option be to become a
corporate member?

I could be a member of several local chapters if I desired. Hey, I could
even ditch my OSMF membership if I thought the local chapters represented
me and supported OSM work enough.
It would probably be nice to know where the membership overlap lies, but I
suppose you can't share that data (under GDPR and other reasons), so you'd
have to ask for it each time OSMF membership is renewed. You could at least
(should) be getting annual membership numbers from each of the local
chapters, to know how big they are.

>From somewhere on the map,
Gregory (LivingWithDragons).

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 23:36, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to think that all board members are experienced mappers with a
> variety of hats.
> Unfortunately we are dependent on one or two such as Frederick which is
> wonderful whilst they are around but might be difficult if they disappear
> for one reason or another.
> I don't think we should underestimate the value of the working groups.
> I'm not so sure about groups of local mappers.  I've worked with a number
> of mappers across the world but rarely do I have the time to meet up with
> the "local" mappers although I do local mapping from time to time.  Some
> people are interested in the meeting side of mapping others just map.
> There are conflicts between data accuracy and the "just do it" with
> inexperienced mappers and someone else will clean it up attitude.
> For the moment it all works but should we have a more formal governance?
> I'm not sure.  We probably are getting there slowly but certain parts of
> the world are on a worse state data quality wise than others and perhaps it
> is something that should be looked at.
> Cheerio John
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:18 PM Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com wrote:
>> I think we are seeing a lot of weaknesses in our governance structure,
>> and we should think bigger about changes.
>> Currently and in all its history, no one on the Board represents any
>> constituency. We are individuals with many experiences. OSM is a global
>> project with many different factors by design. From the very beginning in
>> 2004, it was about both hobbyists and professionals and artists and more,
>> anyone with the passion for an open map. The notion that the core of OSM is
>> one subset of that passion is a much more recent invention. So, the more
>> perspectives and experiences an individual board member can bring, the
>> better our decision making.
>> Now I love the HOT community and think the organization does a lot of
>> good work for OSM, but that’s only a part of my identity — I’m also a craft
>> mapper who biked every road in his town with GPS, an open source developer
>> who set up the original website w slippy map and tilserver, I’ve helped
>> people start to map on 5 continents in really tricky circumstances. I’ve
>> worked with OSM in government roles and in roles at Mapbox.
>> I don’t accept anyone limiting my identity. Categorizing people in OSM as
>> one thing or another does our project a disservice. Saying it ultimately
>> belongs to one type of person or another is sad. What matters is that we
>> are all here because of our passion for the map and to comtribute to the
>> amazing change OSM has had on the world for nearly 15 years. Bridge the map.
>> As we’ve grown, we may need more structure to board composition. However
>> I don’t think the proposed idea of 1 person max per org will have an impact
>> on that need, or be workable. We’ve only ever really been in that situation
>> when we had two people from cloudmade on the Board way back. The HOT
>> example does not apply — being a Voting Member is the same as being an OSMF
>> member in terms of governance role.
>> I’m encouraged by the growth of official local chapters. I think these
>> bodies have the best chance of bringing together the 1000s of perspectives
>> in OSM into a somewhat cohesive and stable whole.
>> It’s worth thinking about a board where local chapters have
>> representation in some seats; where members have some; and some are
>> reserved for appointment for needed board skills and continuity. There’s
>> some elements of this in Wikimedia to consider.
>> Or other ideas. Let’s think bigger and openly in 2019 about what kind of
>> OSMF will serve us best. And work to tell a story about ourselves with
>> encompasses all the complexity of this crazy project.
>> Mikel
>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018, 3:55 PM, Tobias Knerr <
>> osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:
>> On 12.12.2018 00:5 Nicolas chavent wrote:
>> > Tobias Knerr proposed in his manifesto to "Limit board members from
>> > the same org to 1 seat", since this manifesto item has not yet been
>> > picked up in the Questions/Answers section of the Board Elections wiki
>> > nor in the discussions, it would be great to hear about it from the
>> > other candidates and members.
>> Thanks for your support! I would also be interested in the opinions of
>> other candidates about this idea, as improving the representation of
>> unaffiliated volunteers on the board is an issue I strongly care about,
>> and I believe my proposed change could be an important step in that
>> direction.
>> Because your mail links this situation to a specific criticism of HOT,
>> however, I would like to emphasize the following, as I've already done
>> in my manifesto: I do not believe that any members of our community are
>> acting in bad faith. Nor is this about members of HOT, or any other
>> group, being instructed or obligated to act in a particular manner. None
>> of that is required to care about the composition of the board, though.
>> It's sufficient to recognize that our perspectives on OSM are inevitably
>> shaped by our background, and if many or most board members see OSM at
>> least partially through the lens of a particular organization or sector
>> (such as humanitarian work), this is bound to have a tangible effect on
>> the foundation's direction.
>> OSM enjoys a thriving ecosystem today, with thousands of organizations
>> making valuable contributions – large or small – to our project. In
>> light of that, I believe that no single organization is so important to
>> OSM on its own that it makes sense for its members to hold a majority,
>> or even a sizeable minority, of the seats on the board. That's my
>> motivation for making this suggestion. Having no more than one board
>> member from the same org doesn't mean that the board is balanced, as
>> Christoph and Simon rightly point out. But having several members of the
>> same third party serving on the board is a clear sign that it is not. As
>> such, I feel this would be a minimum standard for organizational
>> diversity on the board that most members of our community should be able
>> to agree with, which may not be the case for more far-reaching
>> restrictions.
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181215/ebaf68a7/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list