[Osmf-talk] proposal OSMF active contributor membership

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 18:11:47 UTC 2020

Good questions Eugene. I had a couple other questions. On ...

> But that would be fraud, and the membership could be revoked if MWG finds out that the contributions are not meaningful.

"Meaningful" is open to interpretation. Can a "meaningful" contribution be defined further? And if fraud was discovered, what is the process of revocation? Does this go to the OSMF Board for decision?

On the 42 days threshold, has there been any research to look at the implications? How many mappers would now be eligible? Where are they mapping?

Finally, second Rory's call for a FAQ. There's a lot of details here, and there is confusion about what this actually covers, and the intentions. It would be really helpful for communication purposes. Maybe someone can just get this started in the wiki.


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron

On Tuesday, April 7, 2020, 03:53:40 AM EDT, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote: 

Hi Michael/MWG,

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:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list