[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 03 August 2020, Allan Mustard wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> I think I said that in my message.  It's not defined and there is no
> consensus that we can discern.  That's something a reconstituted EWG
> would need to grapple with. If you can suggest objective criteria to
> define "core" or "key" infrastructure, we are all ears.

I have discussed the matter quickly with Simon on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/imagico/diary/393808#comments

As i point out there a narrow definition of core infrastructure can be
made quite well in the form of everything that is necessary for the
central database and the API as well as for generating and distributing
planet files and diffs.  This narrow definition derives from the fact
that this is the only part of OSM that really needs to exist centrally.
And as we all know there is definitely some urgent need for work in
that domain (GDPR just to mention one matter).

I don't see how a wider delineation can be made that is non-subjective.
That is why i said this to be one of the key problems of the strategy
you outline.

> > 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?
>
> If you have a better idea, the Board is all ears.  It's the best idea
> we've had so far, but if there is a better one, great.  Type it up
> and send it, please!

To get one thing clear:  Since it is you who wants to depart from/amend
the volunteer do-ocracy model (for understandable reasons you explained
well) it is logical to ask you to provide arguments and reasoning why
you expect the way you plan to do that to work better.  If or if not i
have a better idea how to do that in detail has no bearing on the
question if what you plan as you drafted it is a good idea.

That being said - in general my approach to decisions on spending money
in a selective way (i.e. were you make a significant statement through
where you spend money on and where not), and i have already explained
that with emphasis in the context of SotM scholarships as well as
microgrants in the past, would be to develop objective selection
criteria in an open and transparent process, to apply those criteria in
an equally open and transparent process and to iterate that as often as
practically possible.  As Roland suggested public voting could be part
of the criteria.  I am not generally a fan of making such choices a
popularity contest but a popularity contest among all mappers beats a
popularity contest among board members ("volunteers whose work we know
and enjoy") any day. ;-)

> We agree and we're working on it. Keep talking and you may get
> drafted for the Budget Working Group ;-)

If you allow me to make the decisions where to spend the money on i
would gladly also draw the budget for that.

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