[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Wed Aug 26 17:03:55 UTC 2020


Thank you Mikel for this very helpful summary.
-Kathleen

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:17 AM Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks everyone who read and discussed this OSMF Talk thread on funding of
> iD development and maintenance (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/006997.html).
> Between August 2nd and 5th, there were 60 messages from 24 people, 6 of
> whom were Board members. I've just read through all the messages, and have
> been taking notes on the topics raised, ideas put forward, and answers from
> the Board. Though it's a daunting task, I'm going to attempt to "briefly"
> summarize the discussion, and apologize in advance for not picking up on
> everything said or even worse getting something wrong. But here goes.
>
>
> There were a handful of posts directly supportive of the proposal, many
> that were supportive but with reservations and significant questions, and
> others that had significant concerns about the broader impacts of the moves
> but not explicitly against. After clarifying some fundamental points (we
> are looking to fund iD's maintainer Quincy Morgan who works independently),
> there were no posts strongly against the idea of supporting iD, and a
> Senior Site Reliability Engineer, as thread grew to encompass that topic as
> well. There was one request for a specific iD feature, and Board response
> was to set expectations that iD's maintainer and not the Board will be
> responsible for the vision and roadmap for the project through consultation
> with users, members and stakeholders.
>
> There was a request for total budget of new expenses, forecasted income,
> plans for reserves, and calculation of runway without new funding. There
> was also concern that growing budget needs might mean even paying some to
> raise that money. The Board response is that the aim is to have a neutral
> financial impact in the first year, by raising funds to cover the iD
> maintainer and Senior Site Reliability Engineer (the two major new
> expenses); and in the coming months we will be working on a longer term
> vision and budget which will more comprehensively plan for the years ahead.
> As part of that longer term budget planning, the Board is mulling what the
> outer boundary of growth should be to provide a stable, reliable platform
> for a growing number of contributors. Unrestricted budget growth is not an
> option.
>
> There were a number of questions about how to identify what projects are
> part of core infrastructure. What are the particular aspects of a project
> to evaluate it as core to OSM? Is this something the Board should be doing,
> or perhaps a revived Engineering Working Group? What is the reason for
> funding iD and not funding JOSM? The Board responses were to say that the
> currents needs (iD and SSRE) are certainly core, but we also agree that
> refining the definition of core is a top consideration for planning;
> reviving the EWG is a priority and input is welcomed on how it should work;
> and that JOSM devs have been explicitly offered support should they want it
> (they say it's not necessary).
>
>
> There was extensive discussion of the risks of these new ventures, and
> questions and requests for more details about the Board's consideration of
> how to mitigate the risks and alternate solutions to consider. The Board
> response was to say that broadly speaking, the Board is risk averse, and is
> not planning a lot more big decisions in the near term; the issues with the
> platform and iD came up suddenly, where the risk to not act was too high,
> and this is a way to turn a crisis into a much better situation. Tackling
> these issues were long overdue, and we now have more oversight in place.
> That said, thorough risks analysis and assessment of options will certainly
> be part of planning in the coming months through Board screen2screen and
> communication and consultation with members.
>
> Several specific risks were raised. First was on the manner of
> contracting, whether the positions should be permanent or fixed-term,
> considered employee or contractor, and how this would be handled in
> different jurisdictions. The Board response was to indicate these
> considerations were top of mind, that some of these considerations are
> indicated implicitly in the Hiring Framework, but that the specifics have
> actually not been determined yet. Thus discussion of all these aspects very
> helpful.
>
> Another risk raised was only approaching companies and organizations for
> funding, leaving out individual contributors who are traditionally a big
> part of OSMF's independent fundraising structure. Board response indicated
> this was an oversight, as we saw this as a way to not burden individual
> members. That said, intention is to see if feasible to open up to
> individual donations now, and certainly for future fundraising drives.
>
> Another risk was raised with the method of Board selection of members from
> applicants to a dispute resolution committee, which is relatively novel.
> Board response is that this is not yet determined and we're open to
> discussion; and that something similar worked fairly well for microgrants
> committee.
>
>
> In considering all these questions and risks, a number of ways to address
> the questions and mitigate risks were offered.
>
> First several suggestions to look at how other projects have dealt with
> this kind of transition, especially ones with long-term success at using
> funding successfully, while continuing to foster a strong independent
> community. Board sees this as very helpful research and conversations to
> have.
>
> A couple suggestions to have mappers or members vote on any new positions
> or funding stream, with reference to the FOSSGIS position statement. Board
> view is that this kind of decision is within the normal purview of board
> responsibilities; meanwhile that of course would mean close consultation
> with members and the community, listening to and considering feedback.
>
> Finally there were a couple suggestions to split off the operational or
> development aspects under consideration, from the holder of the
> intellectual property. The intention would be to insulate the OSM project
> from the additional financial risk. Other members highlighted the
> additional organizational complexity this would bring, the loss of
> influence on decision-making, and legal questions about management of IP.
>
>
> Those are the highlights of the discussion. This topics raises in this
> discussion will be valuable to focus the Board and members work in the
> coming months on long term planning. If anything significant left out, mea
> culpa, please let me know so I can amend.
>
> -Mikel
>
>
> On Sunday, August 2, 2020, 07:48:41 AM EDT, Mikel Maron <
> mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> The OSMF board is working to make OSM's core software and infrastructure
> more stable and sustainable by supporting paid roles for priority needs,
> such as the Senior Site Reliability role (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-July/006973.html),
> and the pilot to fund "OSM Infrastructure" projects (
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-August/006987.html
> ).
>
> As part of this focus, we want to organise coordinated funding to support
> continued maintenance and development of the iD editor, as iD's strong
> continuous development over the past several years has served the OSM
> community well. Quincy Morgan is iD's maintainer and lead developer.
> Unfortunately, full-time support of his work recently ended. He'd very much
> like to continue, and the OSMF Board wants to see that happen. He has
> written up this proposal (
> https://github.com/quincylvania/quincylvania.com/blob/main/resources/Morgan%20iD%20work%20proposal%207_27.pdf)
> with his ideal plans for iD over the next year, along with notes about how
> he'll organise, grow the developer base, communicate, and set priorities,
> and make iD better. The final priorities for the year will be made in
> consultation with the community.
>
> To help fund this project, as well as the SSRE role, we're looking at
> earmarked donations from companies, chapters and organisations.
> Administratively, we believe this is easier than other methods of pooled
> funding, as the OSMF is already in most companies' procurement systems, and
> it would limit paperwork to one contract for iD. Initial contract would be
> for 1 year, and that's what the OSMF would look to raise now.
>
> With the OSMF holding the contract, the Board would take a key
> accountability role, reviewing work done on the contract and assessing
> progress on the plans Quincy develops for the project. Additionally, the
> OSMF is working in cooperation with Quincy to establish a formal appeal
> process (
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/)
> for the relatively rare community issues iD cannot resolve itself.
>
> The OSMF would not see its role as a traditional "boss", instructing iD to
> focus on this or that feature. We would not be prescriptive about
> priorities. This does not mean work in a vacuum. Our expectation is that
> Quincy, in addition to following our hiring framework's principles for
> transparent service to the community, would regularly convene stakeholders
> from the community to share their priorities and feedback. Quincy would
> assess all priorities holistically as he decides on a workable plan for the
> project.
>
> Over the course of the year, we'll evaluate and learn from how the
> arrangement is working for all, as we look towards year 2 and beyond. For
> future years, we are looking at developing an overall plan for long-term
> support for all parts of the OSMF infrastructure. We want to be able to
> offer similar support to other OSM editors. Our early focus on iD is to
> ensure continued development.
>
> We want to find out what you, the OSM community, think. Do you have any
> feedback?
>
> If you know of an organisation that might want to fund this, please feel
> free to ask them to contact the OSMF Board.
>
> -Mikel, for the OSMF Board
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200826/8303ccff/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list