[Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application
Heather Leson
heatherleson at gmail.com
Sun Dec 6 06:52:35 UTC 2020
Thanks for this ongoing discussion.
It seems to me that a global project should have a balance of unique
communities /chapters and legal inquiry. I understand the osmf legal
responsibility, but I would ask for consideration that legal status might
actually help local chapters be more sustainable in some locales.
I applaud efforts to find this balance and support local chapters.
Heather
On Sun, 6 Dec 2020, 00:15 Simon Poole, <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> 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> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20201206/982d0cc7/attachment.htm>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list