[Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 12:32:42 UTC 2020


Janet, Heather
No one doubts their personal dedication. Simply, the structure and communication about map Uganda is unusual for local chapters. Yes that is related to differences in different parts of the world, and that’s totally fine. We are learning. What would help me is some basic details about governance like minutes, and OSM activities. This might take a little more time, but not a lot. Willing to help figure this out.

We’re all learning as we go, including the osmf. I’ve already taken away that we should have a few more standard questions up front to get a clear picture of the chapter, and should share summary of board deliberation during community discussion. I’m also happy to see so much energy in the LCCWG, and interested to see what new models of chapters and association develop.
Mikel

On Thursday, December 3, 2020, 5:13 AM, Janet Chapman <j.chapman at tanzdevtrust.org> wrote:

#yiv8462052214 #yiv8462052214 -- _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv8462052214 #yiv8462052214 p.yiv8462052214MsoNormal, #yiv8462052214 li.yiv8462052214MsoNormal, #yiv8462052214 div.yiv8462052214MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:New serif;}#yiv8462052214 a:link, #yiv8462052214 span.yiv8462052214MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8462052214 a:visited, #yiv8462052214 span.yiv8462052214MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv8462052214 span.yiv8462052214EmailStyle17 {font-family:sans-serif;color:#1F497D;}#yiv8462052214 .yiv8462052214MsoChpDefault {font-family:sans-serif;} _filtered {}#yiv8462052214 div.yiv8462052214WordSection1 {}#yiv8462052214 _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv8462052214 ol {margin-bottom:0cm;}#yiv8462052214 ul {margin-bottom:0cm;}#yiv8462052214 
Thank you Heather, I totally agree.. And thank you for your comments Joost.
 
  
 
Douglas and Geoffrey have done so much to build the OSM community throughout Africa and I don’t feel they have always been given sufficient recognition for that by some at OSMF.
 
  
 
I also feel that if we want to be a true global community, we need to ensure we are sufficiently cognisant of the different challenges faced in areas outside Europe and North America..
 
  
 
Many other prospective local chapters will be watching this discussion with interest, and I fear in some cases, dismay..
 
  
 
So I reiterate I strongly support OSM Uganda’s applications.
 
  
 
Best wishes
 
Janet
 
Crowd2Map Tanzania
 
  
 
From: Heather Leson [mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com]
Sent: 03 December 2020 10:00
To: Douglas Ssebaggala <erunayo at gmail.com>
Cc: OSMF Talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application
 
  
 
Dears 
 
  
 
Thank you again for this discussion
 
  
 
To the MapUganda and OSM Uganda teams: keep on answering. You've been trying to be a local chapter for so long. Navigating governance in your country and osmf does take time. 
 
  
 
To Joost : thank you for all this transparency and effort.
 
  
 
I appreciate that OSMF is changing. But I find it so hard to read some of the underlaying questions. What if OSMF actually made it easier for local chapters and communities to participate more formally in the project? 
 
  
 
If we want to support a global project, there is no cookie cutter way. Some of the questioning could be miscontrued as considering a local community as determental to the project. Now I know none of you mean that. But consider the approaches.
 
  
 
Imagine trying to engage in osmf with this whole exercise as an example. Thanks to those who called Douglas and Geoffrey. 
 
  
 
Good luck. I know that there is a middle ground.someday. 
 
  
 
  
 
Heather 
 
  
 
  
 
Heather 
 
  
 
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020, 21:21 Douglas Ssebaggala, <erunayo at gmail.com> wrote:
 

Hi Joost,
 
  
 
Am sure there has been useful and almost enough discussion on this thread, am totally fine if the discussion can continue for a few more days, but i would like to make some final comments or clarifications.
    
   - "Unfortunately, he doesn't provide the context for us to understand why it is of such value."
    
   
   - Thank you for the research into the value of having a minimum requirement, i had provided a rationale for why it was needed, and did not want to flood the list so i shared direct links.
   - As the Founder of OSM Uganda, i was involved 90% in drafting the constitution, so i can provide context to most of the objectives to the creation of MapUganda for example, working with the OSMF is implicitly mentioned in Article 3 objective 8 and is already happening with OSM Africa, and other partners.
   - The current OSM Uganda board has some of the co-founders, and other very brilliant board members who are steering the organisation, but it's a learning process (as with all of us), and guidance might always be needed, for example on another change i have just noticed on ARTICLE 9: Qualification of membersto have a board member of at least of 16 years of age yet in Uganda, and most African countries, theage of maturity is 18 years, although am a strong advocate for Youths, this is something that would be questionable.
    
   - As Mikel mentions, he has done tremendous support to OSM communities in the (East African) region for the last 10 years. It would be good for OSM Uganda to scale from a small NGO, rather than being degraded to a small NGO
    
   
   - The other operational questions will be answered by the OSM Uganda board (in an organised way, as they had already done): Good enough Joost has set up a meeting about this with the OSM Uganda Board (i had to jump in to clarify Foundational principles for why OSM Uganda was created).
   - From 2019, I have been mainly a volunteer on Wikimedia projects, but also occasionally following OSM activities, and this discussion will be good at a point when OSM Uganda is drafting possible collaboration with the Wikimedia Community Usergroup in Uganda (Comments welcome on the meta/wiki page).
   - Am sharing this because I know there might be some people on or off this list involved with these two communities e.g in Italy, or in theupcoming conversations (feel free to check out the link) on how such communities can coordinate similar efforts in the future.
   - There was already a similar talk about this at Wikimania last year.
    
   - Since these are my final comments, I am available if anyone would like to reach out directly, thank you for listening, and all the reviews to this thread. 
    
   
   - Apologies to anyone who might have been offended by any of the comments in the process, and I hope the discussion has been insightful. 
 
A great week, and new year to everyone, keep safe, and wishing you good health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
 
  
 
Regards,   
 


 
Wikimedian in Uganda
 
Ssebaggala Douglas | Skype: douglo.m | Twitter: @douglaseru |Mob - Uganda: +256 772 422524
 
  
 
  
 
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Joost Schouppe <joost at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
 

Hi,

One of the key questions that comes up seems to be: "Is OSM Uganda a money-making endeavour using OpenStreetMap, or an OpenStreetMap endeavour that has found a business model fit for purpose?"

Craig points in the direction of the first, which Frederik turns into: 

"You see no issues with granting local chapter status to a commercial organisation with the main chartered purpose of providing paid services?".

I think that's a bit of an overstatement, as the quotes Craig posted are "merely" about sources of income, whereas the "main chartered purposes" are in Article 3 and especially Article 4, and tell a story that must sound much more familiar to Frederik's ears. Article 4 has the mission statement of:   "To have a vibrant OpenStreetMap community in Uganda, which is united, organised and growing to assist, and get involved in National and global development goals.". I would say that means you have to read everything in Article 3 in the context of that mission, and everything in article 19 FINANCIAL PROVISIONS as in support of that mission.
Geoffrey himself says they "have been a community since 2011, and we got registered in 2017 as a local non-profit organization in Uganda, run by the OpenStreetMap community in Uganda."

I intend to have a call with OSM Uganda about some of these issues. As well as Craig's comments, I think Christoph also has a few points that need clarification:
- confusion between OpenStreetMap Uganda and MapUganda, and how they presenta themselves at the mapuganda website
- lack of data about "pure OSM activities" (also asked by Mikel)
- membership fee (also requested by Mikel): I can already say that they mentioned in a chat that they are considering running a sort of "active contributor membership" program themselves. Should be carefully done though, as their bylaws have quite high quorum rules

More interesting questions from Mikel:
* How many members are there of OSM Uganda?
That's an easy one, that info should always be on our wiki: Member count 189 as of November 2020 (102 male and 87 female)
* Is there some allowance for people who can't afford the membership fee?
* Are there any public minutes of the Board?
* Are there any public minutes of any meetings of the members? What have they decided on?


I do have some thoughts on this discussion. Maybe I am overstating things, but it feels like some people would like Local Chapters to be almost a carbon copy of the OSMF. I personally think OSMF should reflect the norms of the various communities around the world, and should make space for people with other norms. In that process, both the local groups and the OSMF itself can and should change. I think some of Craig's suggestions should definitely be considered by OSM Uganda, while others seem like unneccesary meddling to me (if people like their titles, who are we to judge - why should an LC have to assume zero paid employees?). I don't think we should meddle too much in this, but -if- the OSMF wants to regulate how exactly the Local Chapters can provide themselves with income, then that should be part of an explicit policy.

On the education requierement: this does sound weird to most of us here, I suppose. It smells like exclusion: "you need to be of background X to matter". But stuff like this should raise questions, not lead to conclusions. A quick websearch turned up both a Ugandan blog post arguing against the idea, as well as this bit from the "Commission of Inquiry to review the provisions of the 1995 Constitution":

"the commission reported that the majority of Ugandans supported a minimum academic qualification, the reasons being: a representative at this level must be able to communicate in the official language, which is english; a member of parliament is qualified to be a minister; she/he should be reasonably educated to represent the country in international fora; there are many Ugandans with university degrees from which the electorate can choose; a ‘level secondary education is a reasonable minimum because many who have achieved it can reasonably express themselves. The majority view was that a’ level should be maintained as the minimum academic qualification."
http://parliamentwatch.ug/question/on-governments-plans-revise-the-minimum-educational-requirement-for-an-mp/

While this just scratches the surface (I did not dig deep enough to be able to value this source) and is certainly not meant as an endorsement, it does go to show that it's a common idea. When chatting with Geoffrey about this, I didn't leave with the impression that this wording was "accidental" in the same way that Rory has. At most perhaps "default thinking". We made it clear that while we understand some of the reasoning behind the idea, it is too much of a potential conflict with our ideas about equal opportunity to remain. From his e-mail's it is clear that Douglas Ssebaggala still supports the scrapped policy. Unfortunately, he doesn't provide the context for us to understand why it is of such value. While I don't think the discussion here is very productive, I think it's a good sign that the group made a majority decision but that someone from the minotiy does speak out about the topic.

On process: 

I think the whole process does need an overhaul. In my year as Secretary, I have focused more on clearing the backlog, than on process. The good thing is that the next Secretary will now have the luxury to think process matters through more fully. The whole matter of who to consult when, and what stage comes before what keeps coming back. For me, the part before the consultations start, is about data collection and spotting any obvious issues. If we can address them, we do. Since the OSMF-talk mailing list can feel like a pack of wolves to the un-iniciated, I also see it as a chance to help avoid some of the turmoil that can occur here. Alas, imperfect human, imperfect results. Should we share embarrasing mistakes with this list? In light of transparency, sure. I personally think not all mistakes should be public - I want local groups to -want- to be a Local Chapter, and not be afraid of this part of the process. We did give it a try to do OSMF consultation through the wiki, by putting the application on the main wiki and inviting comments there. But that didn't really seem to work.
Who should do "the legal review"? For the period that I was involved in Board work, the entire process was always lead by the Secretary. The community consulations are used because the Board are few humans, and these other groups are many humans. Time and time again, it turns out that that helps spot mistakes and improve proposals.

I also notice a pattern where some ideas are presented as obvious, but are not outlined in policy. In this thread for example: "only well-established groups should apply". I guess this was part of the discussion when the Local Chapters were first envisioned, but I'm not aware of a rule on this. Such a rule, if needed, should be quite lenient, IMHO. I know at least two groups where half of the motivation to form an official group was that they could then become an offficial Local Chapter. Telling people "sure, you make a formal organization that fits the OSMF is great; but you'll still have to wait several years to get the seal of approval" would take the wind out of the sails of people working on formalizing things. Or is about year between official founding and formal recognition enough to be "well-established"?


Finally, a bit directed at Simon.
> quote:
In the past the community review period was directed at the -local-
community so that it could be gauged if they were happy with being
represented by the group running the proposed LC, not an ersatz legal
review and LC criteria check (naturally that should be done by the
LCCWG  instead of providing the board with more opportunity to moan
about too much work, but that particular non-starter has already been
discussed).

As I said just above, the OSMF consultation does prove useful in this way. I suppose Simon knows this, but for those still reading: there is always a local as well as an OSMF consultation. In most cases these run at the same time, though for OsGeo Oceania we did a more extensive and active outreach over a slightly longer period.

Why is it "naturally" the LCCWG? If it were a strictly legal matter (it is not IMHO, since the policy is so vague, couldn't it just as well be LWG? Can't working groups decide on their own remit?  I thought we made it clear that we did ask them before, and they said no. It's not that the Board wants to keep this job, so as to have an excuse to moan about workload. I find the first statement rather arrogant, and the second quite disrespectful. If your intent is to demotivate volunteers, keep it up!
 
Yes, being on the Board brings about a workload that can be pretty exhausting (though for most of us not so much because of the amount of actual work, but rather the energy required). And of course, we could just sit back and only do the bare minimum. We've chosen to do what we think is necessary, which will hopefully pay off in a more vibrant community taking a load of our shoulders. For the time being though, things can be tough. For one thing, I do hope the Board can keep being the friendly place it has become in the last year. There are still very fundamental disagreements, that are making this harder recently. But it is only by being a place that is nice to work in, that you can attract more help. In the LCCWG, we did see this happen: we've been building momentum over the past year, working on a limited number of projects. The Local Chapters Congress attracted people from around the world - around this time, we attracted five new members. So we must be doing something right. One thing we actively avoided is meeting any new idea with snarky sarcasm. I think that does help.
 
  
 
Best,
 
Joost
 
OSMF Board secretary
 
_______________________________________________
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
 
_______________________________________________
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/20201205/a9724dbd/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list