[Osmf-talk] Interesting Points | Re: Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

[Rory McCann]

Hi Andy,

You've certainly given me something to think about. It's very easily to 
accidentally mess up, even years later. Specific warnings like this are 
very useful for me.

On 05/08/2020 14:55, Andy Allan wrote:
> 1) The decision was made to make the SSRE job permanent from the
> get-go, rather than other options such as a fixed-term contract. But
> there's nothing to indicate that the Board have considered or
> mitigated any risks, like around terminating the contract if we decide
> that something different is required. Perhaps those risks were
> discussed? But they haven't been shared.

We didn't discuss the specifics of that contract. permanent / fixed
term. Yes, legally there is a difference, but in practice is it a large
difference? We have the right to make a position redundant, and that
might cost money, but it is very different from telling someone “we're
not renewing your fixed term contract”? Either way, someone is pissed
off, right?

> 2) The iD contract will be funded by "earmarked donations from
> companies, chapters and organisations", which notably leaves out
> individuals.

I think it would be good for individuals to be able to contribute to 
this project, and I suggested that on the board.

Perhaps we should set up a patreon/librapay/etc project? I haven't 
organised that because I was afraid that it would bring in a fraction of 
the money that a large corporate donor could give. Unfortunately.

So organising a way for individuals to financially contribute is good, 
but I think the big corps would still have the majority of the power. ☹

One can always make a regular donation ( 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Donate), including setting up a 
recurring PayPal donation.

> 3) The board is going to appoint members of the new dispute resolution
> committee. This is again a significant departure from what we normally
> do in OSMF, where few (if any?) groups have ever been appointed like
> this. Maybe it's a better way? I dont' have a strong opinion. But we
> have nothing showing that the risks have been considered.

Yes that is new(ish). The purpose of this panel/body is to arbitrate on 
disagreements. People will first volunteer to be on this panel, and then 
the board will select (somehow!) 5 people who will have some form of 
""""authority"""". Allowing as many people as want to be on this body 
would make it have less """"authority"""", defeating the point.

Rory
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: rory_mccann.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 4 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200808/f801c285/attachment.vcf>