[Osmf-talk] Funding of iD Development and Maintenance

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Thu Aug 27 08:56:44 UTC 2020


Also thanks from me, it seems to be covering discussion really well.

Aug 26, 2020, 19:03 by osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org:

> 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/20200827/29193ad6/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list