[Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application

[Heather Leson]

Thank you, Mikel.

I am sure there is a middle way. The team has been instrumental, as Janet
said. Understanding there are different types of chapters is key.


Heather

Heather

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020, 13:38 Mikel Maron, <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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:
>
> 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.
>
>    1. "Unfortunately, he doesn't provide the context for us to understand
>    why it is of such value."
>
>
>    - Thank you for the research
>       <http://parliamentwatch.ug/question/on-governments-plans-revise-the-minimum-educational-requirement-for-an-mp/>
>       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
>       <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/2/2f/OSM_Uganda-Constitution_2020.pdf> and
>       is already happening
>       <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Applications/Uganda#Other_information>
>       with OSM Africa, and other partners.
>       - The current OSM Uganda board has some of the co-founders
>       <http://mapuganda.org/history.html>, and other very brilliant board
>       <http://mapuganda.org/board.html> 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 members *to have a board member of *at
>       least of 16 years of age **yet* in Uganda, and most African
>       countries, the age of maturity
>       <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority#Age_18> is 18 years,
>       although am a strong advocate for Youths, this is something that would be
>       questionable.
>
>
>    1. 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
>       <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Uganda/Partnership_with_OpenStreetMap_Uganda>
>       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 the upcoming
>       conversations
>       <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Transition/Global_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
>       <https://wikimedia.se/2019/11/26/humanitarian-openstreetmap-crowdsourcad-oppna-data-ger-underlag-for-battre-beslut/#english>
>       last year.
>
>
>    1. 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
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Uganda>*
>
> *Ssebaggala Douglas | Skype: douglo.m | Twitter:* *@douglaseru*
> <https://twitter.com/douglaseru> | *Mob - Uganda: +256 772 422524
> <+256%20772%20422524>*
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/c6bc1694/attachment.htm>