[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Aug 5 20:05:21 UTC 2020


Whoopsie.

Seems as I was reading this thread and the proposal with wrong assumptions.

Based on prior public statements by Quincy and discussions with others,
I and probably not only I, was under the impression that while there was
a shortfall in funding for his position, it was something that could
fairly easily be compensated, and I took Mikels announcement and
proposal more as taking over the role of Critigen  and re-bundling
existing funding under the OSMF umbrella with some additional sources
added than anything else.

But it seems as if the tiny but not quite unimportant fact that there is
no secured funding at all now wasn't really communicated.

This changes quite a few things in my appraisal of the situation (not to
mention that I'm not convinced that this is all an innocent coincidence,
but that will need some research). As a tendency I would in this case
not try to raise the funds up front because the urgency of the matter
will just lead to potential funders using that for (euphemistically
speaking) more leverage, but contract with Quincy now and take our time
arranging the funding over the next couple of months (because that's why
you have reserves, for unplanned situations).

Simon

Am 05.08.2020 um 18:16 schrieb Michal Migurski:
>> On Aug 5, 2020, at 7:01 AM, michael spreng <osmf at m.spreng.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 05.08.20 14:14, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>> Or the other way round, possibly you meant that by "arms-length
>>> organisations", that the OSMF becomes the nondescript charity that only
>>> has a couple of trademarks and rights, and all the operative business is
>>> run by the "OpenStreetMap Services Ltd." or whatever, which would be the
>>> organisation that can fail without tearing down the project.
>> I was just thinking the same thing. It would feel a lot better if we
>> could spin employing editor developers out into another organization.
> I think you’re describing the prior status quo here, Frederik. iD editor development was owned by a collection of loosely-aligned organizations who recently decided to halt their support, leaving OSMF in a situation that resulted in this conversation. This is no longer a hypothetical risk of inaction as Joost wrote. The bad outcome has already happened and OSMF is scrambling to respond. It is a profoundly weak position, compounded by prior boards’ refusal to consider these questions ahead of time.
>
> I think we’ll find that there’s no way to have it both ways here. Spinning responsibility for employment to another organization shifts the need for fundraising but does not erase it. If we spin it too far as we did in the past, we lose any influence over that organization’s decision-making priorities. To have influence we have to accept the issues that come with setting goals and ensuring that they can be met.
>
> -mike.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200805/dc3cd308/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list