[Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Sat Dec 5 23:12:21 UTC 2020
This seems to have been going around in circles for years now, but
again: the LC scheme was conceived for well established, self sustaining
organisations similar in structure to the OSMF, aka open membership
controlled organisations organized mostly around promoting OSM.
As these things go the conditions to become an LC were always extremely
relaxed, just go and compare to the hoops you need to jump through to
become similarly associated with the WMF, OSGeo and so on.
In the mean time however it seems as if the OSMF is so desperate to get
more LCs that there are actually no conditions at all. From
organisations that can't support themselves, to such that don't
actually seem to be operating any kind of real membership scheme.
If the organisation applying for LC status doesn't fulfil the criteria
then there should be no drama around saying no, not to belittle the
group in question but because the OSMF - LC relationship bestows certain
rights and obligations on the LCs that just don't make sense if they
don't and can't fit that specific model. The OSMF-LC relationship is
essentially for life, particularly after the recent contract changes,
and it is likely a good idea to be a bit picky about ones spouse in such
circumstances.
On the other hand, from day zero, it was always clear that there might
be less involved relationships with other kinds of groups, be they less
formal ad hoc user groups, thematic of a different nature and so on,
explicitly because it is clear that the world is a large and diverse
place and a one size fit all rule is not going to work everywhere, in
particular not for nascent communities and third world countries.
The OSMF hasn't laid out the rules and formalities for such
relationships, but instead of discussing yet another application that
doesn't really fit, maybe it would be a better use of time for the board
to task the LCCWG with coming up with solutions for the handful of
situations that are common.
Simon
Am 05.12.2020 um 16:39 schrieb 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* 03 December 2020 10:00
> *To:* Douglas Ssebaggala <erunayo at gmail.com
> <mailto:erunayo at gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* OSMF Talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>
> 2. 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.
>
> 3. 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 <tel:+256%20772%20422524>/*
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 2:56 PM Joost Schouppe
> <joost at osmfoundation.org <mailto: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/
> <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
> <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> <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/20201206/c05ceb46/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201206/c05ceb46/attachment-0001.sig>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list