[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Mon Nov 2 03:17:31 UTC 2020

Hi Tobias,
I appreciate that you are listening and willing to give the idea of
limiting membership longer and more detailed consideration. I agree that
members should have a detailed and fully vetted proposal before them, with
time to debate, before voting.
I'm not sure though why the Board and MWG getting together to study the
issue requires a resolution? Is it not already within their prerogative to
investigate the issue and draft proposals?

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 3:55 AM Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:

> Hi all,
> some people have expressed concerns that this resolution needs more time
> and more careful consideration. Therefore, I would like to hear your
> feedback on the alternative approach included below.
> The main change is that this resolution would task the board + MWG with
> working on a proposed resolution, or set of resolutions, for a general
> meeting next year. The final decision would then be made by a membership
> vote at that meeting. This means that it will take longer for the
> measure to be implemented (which could potentially be lessened by having
> a second, earlier general meeting in 2021 specifically to decide on AoA
> changes and resolutions), but it would allow the membership to have a
> more specific suggestion in front of them before making their decision.
> ## Potential text of the resolution:
> The board of directors shall, together with the OSMF Membership Working
> Group, work on a set of proposals to ensure that all successful
> applicants for membership or associate membership in the OpenStreetMap
> Foundation have made a reasonable amount of contributions to
> OpenStreetMap. The specific form of the contributions (e.g. mapping vs.
> non-mapping) does not make difference for the fulfilment of these
> prerequisites. The board shall submit these proposals as possible
> resolutions at a general meeting in 2021.
> ## Rationale:
> This change would more firmly establish the OSMF as an entity serving
> the people and communities who create OpenStreetMap. By ensuring that
> votes in Foundation elections and resolutions are cast by OpenStreetMap
> contributors, it becomes more likely that the Foundation will continue
> to support the the project well.
> The criteria are meant to be similar in spirit, although not necessarily
> in scale, to the fee waiver criteria (known as active contributor
> membership). In particular, they are meant to allow for non-mapping
> contributions.
> Until the next general meeting, the board and MWG would have time to
> perform a more thorough legal and community review. The membership would
> then be presented with a set of fully-fleshed out proposals to adopt or
> reject.
> A possible implementation could be based on powers under ยง15 of the
> Articles of Association. Unlike the fee waiver, eligibility would then
> be evaluated as a one-time step during application for membership,
> rather than annually. As such, members do not have to fear losing their
> membership if their activity fluctuates or declines. Other
> implementations, e.g. based on a change to the Articles of Association,
> would be feasible as well.
> --
> Tobias
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201101/e332adab/attachment.htm>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list