[Osmf-talk] Local Chapters criteria

[Andy Allan]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 at 21:18, Joost Schouppe <joost at osmfoundation.org> wrote:

> Some examples that were given:
> - how established must a local organization be to be eligible to become a Local Chapter
> - how can we measure this as objectively as possible, and
> - how to handle applications from organizations that have a broader scope than just OSM

My immediate thoughts were on additional requirements like a minimum
number of members (e.g. I don't think a 2 person organisation should
be a LC candidate), some rules around ensuring that members are not
all from the same organisation (I wouldn't like to see a local chapter
that is entirely members of one company, for example).

But then I reconsidered this approach. I think there are already
chicken-and-egg problems for candidate local chapters, particularly
around attracting members to something that's not a chapter yet, never
mind dealing with the whole naming issue. Adding more requirements
doesn't make it any easier for potential local chapters to come into
existence, and I would say our current problem is too few local
chapters rather than too many.

So instead I think it would be better to continue to be permissive in
accepting new local chapters, but make it easier to end the agreement
if they aren't living up to our needs. After all, any problem that you
might consider a disqualification for adding a chapter today could as
easily be a situation that the chapter finds itself in a few years
down the line. For example, with too few members, or everyone leaves
except for employees of one company, and so on.

The current rules for ending the agreement are a little unclear, and
don't provide much guidance to local chapters as to what the ongoing
expectations from OSMF would be. For example, if they are expected to
maintain a minimum number of members, or elected directors, or so on.
I assume that the 3 month notice option (section 10.1) allows OSMF to
terminate the agreement for whatever reason we choose, but if so, that
still leaves it unclear to our current and future Board members what
sort of criteria they should reasonably consider. (I also think
there's a drafting error in the agreements, since the current rules
allow immediate termination "if the Chapter ceases to support the
goals outlined in clause 1 of this agreement" but clause 1 is just the
identification of the parties and doesn't contain any goals!)

So in summary, I don't think we should make it harder for LCs to join.
Any criteria we come up with for joining would be better considered as
ongoing expectations or phrased as reasons why the agreement might be
withdrawn.

Thanks,
Andy