[Osmf-talk] OSM Uganda Local Chapter application

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Fri Nov 27 21:08:29 UTC 2020

On 27.11.20 20:36, Christoph Hormann via osmf-talk wrote:
> So my question to the board is:  Have there been any concerns raised or
> pertinent observations made internally during the review of the OSM
> Uganda application that are not part of the documentation of the
> application available on the OSMF website?

Just describing my personal recollection here, and I was not one of the
board members involved in direct communications with MapUganda, so take
this with a grain of salt:

There were several aspects that at least some of us on the board found
concerning or unusual while reviewing the MapUganda application.

Among those was a requirement in their constitution for board members to
meet a certain minimum level of education. Their constitution was since
changed to drop this particular requirement – you can compare Article 9
between the versions of the document on the OSM Foundation wiki:
Note that the newer version still requires skills in one of a list of
fields, although the list is relatively broad if it's generously

Another observation was that their organizational structure, as depicted
in the application¹, appears rather hierarchical, with dedicated
management roles, an idea of appointing people into roles, etc.

This also relates to a broader concern that MapUganda seems to have a
strong focus on running paid projects – based on several aspects of
their applications and submitted documents, including their financial
statement² where projects appear to be by far their main source of
income. This could at least potentially give raise to new issues (e.g.
relationship of the chapter with volunteer contributors not engaged in
organized projects; competition between the chapter and community
members wishing to offer similar services as the chapter and/or apply
for grants).

There were other topics mentioned, but my impression is that the ones
above that featured the most in our deliberations. Note that the board
didn't have an unanimous consensus on whether and to what extent these
observations were problematic, so I think it's very valuable to get
feedback from the community. I found the thread very insightful so far!


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list