[Osmf-talk] proposal OSMF active contributor membership

[michael spreng]

Hi

Last December at the AGM a proposal for membership in the OSMF based
solely on sizeable contribution was accepted with a very good result
(91%):
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/2019/Suggested_AoA_Changes_revised#Vote_8:_Fee_waiver_for_mappers.2Fcontributors
In January, the membership working group discussed the implementation:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2020-01-19
Sorry for the long silence since ; I would now like to open the
discussion and ask for your feedback and comments on the implementation
of the new active contributor membership

As described in the rationale for the vote, this is no charity. We want
active contributors to be member of the OSMF and be able to vote for the
benefit of the project. The membership fee should not be a barrier.

Our proposal is to automatically grant memberships to mappers who
request it and who have contributed at least 42 calendar days in the
last year (365 days).

Mapping days is not perfect, but we need a benchmark that is objective,
easy to verify, and simple for us to measure and implement.

Why 42 days? If we measure contributions in mapping days by OSMF members
who map (83%), roughly half of them map more than 42 days per year. We
would expect a “slightly exceptional” contribution in terms of mapping days.

We also discussed abuse. You could of course make tiny contributions
like wiggling a single node on 60 days, and maybe go undetected and get
your membership. But that would be fraud, and the membership could be
revoked if MWG finds out that the contributions are not meaningful.

Not everyone contributes by mapping, and some of the most familiar names
in our members list barely map. Some are very involved, for example, in
organizing conferences. Those other forms of contribution should be
recognised as well, and the board would take circular decisions on these
applications.

Please share your thoughts.

Best regards
Michael
Membership working group