[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

[Christoph Hormann]

That is a refreshingly comprehensible, consistent and reflective
explanation of the motivation behind the project funding decisions.
Thanks.

All other issues aside (on which i have partially commented elsewhere) -
one of the key problems of the strategy you outline is the
identification of what belongs to the domain of key/core infrastructure
and the selection of projects/people from this domain for financial
support - based on short term usefulness/need?  Long term strategic
importance?  Merit of the people involved?  Economic needs of the
people?

The main benefit of the volunteer do-ocracy model in OSM is not that it
is so efficient to recruit and motivate qualified people to do
important work fast.  It is that it seems to in the medium term perform
at least some level of market self regulation.  Mostly because the most
competent people intuitively pick fields to volunteer for with
significance in present and future.  Far from perfect of course - i am
the first to admit that and i have lamented the lack of focus on
strategically important things in the OSM community on many occassions.
But ultimately my question is:  What makes you think a resurrected EWG
you are going to recruit is going to do any better?

And emphatic +1 on Simon's request for a solid public budgeting - for
permanent tasks preferably at least with a three year horizon (see also
Roland's request in that regard from May and the FOSSGIS statement
regarding hiring).

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/