[Osmf-talk] Membership fee waiver

nicolas chavent nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 16:27:29 UTC 2018


Thanks Mikel. So to be 100% clear, by filling a form (URL yet to be
retrieved  or emailing the OSMF) a mapper is asking not pay any of the
whole 15£ yearly OSMF registration fees and shall an OSMF committee of some
sort assess afterwards this demand as relevant, he/she becomes an OSMF
member eligible to vote, is this correct ?

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 17:08, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> a écrit :

> The fee waiver is not structured as a reimbursement, but rather as a
> submitted request to have an exemption to paying the fee.
>
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018, 11:02:44 AM EST, nicolas chavent <
> nicolas.chavent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Mikel and Steve,
>
> It's good to hear that there's a process in place for fee waiver and that
> mappers submitting a request can be re-imbursed shall their claim has some
> ground and it's equally good to hear that time extension for registration
> will be discussed.
> Aside of fee waiver for cost additional to Paypal, we may consider to base
> the yearly 15£ OSMF membership to the cost of living for those of us living
> in "Developing" or "Least Developed" countries where this amount weight is
> way more than in the "Developed" world.
> Similarly a "social" rate for not rich folks from "Developed" countries
> could be also discussed.
>
> Outside of a couple of days extension of the deadline for registration as
> an OSMF member in the position of being eligible for vote at our next Board
> election, I fear given low internet access and web presence, that this will
> have a very limited effect for mappers of the "South". Unfortunately, the
> same goes for non Paypal extra fees only reimbursement mechanism.
>
> Best,
> Nicolas
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 16:31, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
> I think what Simon pointed out is that the OSMF as an organization has
> legally decided in 2014 that we must accept requests for fee waivers in
> situations where the fee is an unreasonable burden.
>
> The MWG was charged with coming up with a fee waiver process for this and
> also for situations where money transfer was impossible. The latter is
> done, and the former is still ongoing.
>
> My understanding is that a lack of a process doesn't change the situation
> that the OSMF must act on these requests when we receive them.
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018, 10:26:51 AM EST, Steve Friedl <
> steve at unixwiz.net> wrote:
>
>
> Unless I misremember all the meetings, the fee waiver, at least in its
> introductory form, is intended to address money transfer issues only (where
> there’s no reasonable money transfer facility), not to address needs-based
> waivers of the type you suggest.  In places that don’t have Paypal, or the
> wire transfer fees would overwhelm the transaction costs: those were the
> things I believe we had in mind.
>
>
>
> My understanding is that sticking with objective tests, rather than
> subjective assessments, was a safer way to start.
>
>
>
> If somebody else on the MWG remembers it differently, I’m happy to be
> corrected.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* nicolas chavent <nicolas.chavent at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 15, 2018 7:05 AM
> *To:* Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* OSMF Talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Osmf-talk] Membership fee waiver
>
>
>
> 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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a2585e55/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list