[Osmf-talk] proposal OSMF active contributor membership

michael spreng osmf at m.spreng.ch
Mon Apr 6 20:01:13 UTC 2020


Hi

I don't have much to add to the good response from the other Michael. As
an MWG member, I would be quite reluctant to deal with this level of
privacy. Remember, every member of the OSMF can inspect the membership
register (but we will ask a few questions about what you want to do with
it before handing it out). Who joined under a fee-waiver program is not
revealed, but still the name, country, email and one of the osm account
names will be shown.

As for proof: Currently we use OSM messages to verify the applicant is
in control of that account. But we want to switch to oauth.

Michael

On 06/04/2020 20:20, Michael Reichert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 04/04/2020 um 00.25 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
>> Some mappers operate several accounts for privacy reasons. Say a mapper
>> had two accounts and mapped 30 days with one, 30 days with another
>> account. Now the mapper shows up at your doorstep and wants to qualify
>> for the waiver. He says "I am the person behind accounts A and B".
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> 1. Assuming the mapper tells the truth, are they eligible?
>>
>> 2. Will you believe the mapper, or request some form of proof that they
>> are indeed behind both these accounts?
>>
>> 3. Will the information that the mapper uses accounts A and B - which
>> might be a carefully guarded secret - be stored by MWG?
> 
> Most claims in OSM to be active or not are verifiable because almost all
> our activities leave traces on the internet – being it edits in the OSM
> database, code contributions (Git, SVN) or activity within the working
> groups which can be seen in their meeting minutes. The Foundation is, as
> long as nobody actively tries to hide things, a transparent organisation.
> 
> Members have to provide their real name during registration, even
> associated members. Anyone have the right to request a list of normal
> members. I presume that members (not the general public) have the right
> to request a list of the associated members, don't they, at least to
> exercise their rights as members against the board if necessary? We
> should be careful to guarantee members privacy.
> 
> If someone uses a dedicated account to separate different mapping
> activities (e.g. surveys vs. imports), all accounts should be taken into
> account. However, they should not expect that the relationship between
> their membership identity and their accounts is kept secret.
> 
> Not guaranteeing absolute privacy allows every interested member to
> verify that people under the proposed mapping fee waiver are indeed
> active contributors.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> 



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list