[Osmf-talk] Membership fee waiver

nicolas chavent nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 15:05:15 UTC 2018


Hi all,

Quickly, if this possibility for active mappers in developing and least
developed countries to be eligible for fee waiver and be reimbursed be
known up-stream of the election process, a significant amount of mappers
(at least from Haiti and Africa) would have joined.
The 15£ yearly contribution being way too much for their level of
resources.

Reflecting upon diversity of OSMF membership, now that this info is known
when it's no longer possible to sign for membership, can we pause and
assess teh relevance/feasibility of shifting teh election process of a week
and give time for this information to spread and OSMF to have a more
diverse and geographically more widespread membership ? Can this be put as
a talk item for the OSMF board meeting ?

Thanks,
Nicolas



Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 15:36, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Very good to note that people can simply apply for a waiver now. The
> resolution states
>
> > In order to be eligible for the membership fee waiver, the applicant
> may be required to contribute something else of value (e.g: time, …) to the
> Foundation, for example write a paragraph on mapping in their region
>
> So if this holds, an interested potential member emails the board (
> board at osmfoundation.org) and MWG (mwg at osmfoundation.org), with the
> details required for associate membership (name, OSM id, country) and a
> paragraph describing their need and some details on their contribution to
> OSM, we'll need to vote on it.
>
> We'll be discussing this in the OSMF Board meeting later today.
>
> On a more systematic solution. I joined the Board a year after the 2014
> resolution, and have not seen any requests for a fee waiver in that time
> (well before this thread started yesterday). I've been a strong proponent
> of addressing the fee waiver, and Joost's telling is accurate -- there's
> simply been too little volunteer help available. The Foundation welcomes
> more -- I think this could be sorted out with a short amount of determined
> work by just a couple people. Please consider it.
>
> -Mikel
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018, 1:53:12 AM EST, Simon Poole <
> simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>
>
> Only the board would know (and I don't remember seeing anything in the
> minutes).
>
> Simon
> Am 14.11.2018 um 23:53 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
>
> Any idea if that has happened yet Simon?
>
> Thank you,
> Rob
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, 22:20 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch wrote:
>
> Forgetting all about making it easy and so on, there is currently IMHO no
> reason a potential member couldn't apply for a waiver, it would simply need
> to be decided on a case by case base.
>
> Simon
> Am 14.11.2018 um 23:08 schrieb joost schouppe:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I can't give an account for the first three years, but I can share my
> perspective about the last. I specifically joined the MWG a year ago to
> help push forward the waiver fee program.
>
> Over the last year, most of the volunteer time has gone to keeping the
> engine running. There were deep problems with the management software for
> membership (civicrm), which made it easy to lose members. There was a weird
> problem with reminders about lapsing membership. Since we do not have a
> self service area, people depend on these reminders. It was a hard problem
> to fix, which involved a lot of cooperation between people, as well as a
> lot if discussion about whether or not to hire consultancy to fix it; or
> even to make sure they could actually work if hired.
>
> At all the meetings I attended, I brought up the waiver fee. There always
> seemed to be new barriers to just start with it. A form, a procedure,
> default lettres, membership classes. Since the meetings were rather spread
> out, you also lose time with bringing back to mind all the details. Since a
> lot of the work required knowledge about the inner workings of the
> software, there wasn't a lot of work I could do as a not so technical
> newbie. When there were things I could do myself, my own time constraints
> came in the way - as well as recently finding out a lot of thinking work we
> did together was lost because we used an exotic open source tool that
> disappeared from the internet.
>
> So my analysis if the last year would be: too little volunteers to do the
> actual work, and a lack of efficient workflows.
>
> IIRC we did get several board checkups on the waiver fee and the
> occasional call to think bigger.
> I don't think there is anyone to blame, except maybe if you start looking
> for the root causes of our lack of volunteers. Since I don't want to turn
> this into my position statement for the Board elections, I'll hold that
> thought for now. I will say that this experience is what led me to try and
> revive the local chapters group as a community building group. This group
> would try to work in and with the other working groups to support and push
> relevant projects forward. Unfortunately that try has not really resulted
> in much just yet.
>
> All the best,
> Joost
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181115/4278a7e3/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list