[Osmf-talk] proposal OSMF active contributor membership
Eugene Alvin Villar
seav80 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 07:50:38 UTC 2020
Just to clarify, does this active contributor membership provision confer
regular membership or just associate membership? This difference matters
because only regular members have the right to run for the Board,
for example. (Looking at the January meeting minutes where this proposal
was discussed in the context of the existing fee waiver program, I guess
the answer is associate membership?)
Second, the January meeting minutes talked about paid mappers. Does this
proposal do away with the question? That is, it doesn't matter if the
mapping days were paid or not?
Third, what about edge cases? Suppose that when an active contributor's
membership expires on December 1 but they have only mapped 40 days over the
last year. They then proceed to map an additional 2 days and then renew
their membership on December 3. Does this mean that they can't vote on the
upcoming AGM because they haven't been a continuous member for the past 30
days prior to the AGM due to the 2-day gap?
Finally a suggestion. I understand you analyzed the membership statistics
to arrive at the roughly 42-day median value. While I like the geeky
significance of the number 42, why not just round this to a nice round
number like 50 or 40?
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020, 2:23 AM michael spreng, <osmf at m.spreng.ch> wrote:
> Last December at the AGM a proposal for membership in the OSMF based
> solely on sizeable contribution was accepted with a very good result
> In January, the membership working group discussed the implementation:
> 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
> 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
> Please share your thoughts.
> Best regards
> Membership working group
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk