[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites

[Mikel Maron]

If you attended the OSMF Board meeting yesterday, you won't be surprised that I don't think this proposal is ready for consideration, and is strategically ineffective.

I agree we want members to be involved in OSM, but there has been little consideration of how this would work in practice, and I don't think we need requirements. What would be the minimum mapping days? How much non-mapping activity is deemed enough? "significant contributions" is a phrase also used in Active Contributor Membership -- but I don't think the intent is to apply the same rule of 42 mapping days. Certainly it has to be less -- how much less? We've had some experience of assessing non-mapping activity on the Board -- how many more would the Board need to assess under some new rule?

More critically, adopting measures like these is not strategic to the "takeover threat". It simply wouldn't help prevent takeover. The number of mapping days will be at a low enough level that a truly malicious actor could easily meet the threshold. Meanwhile legitimate folks would be put through an extra step, and there would be extra work for the Foundation. Extra work for no gain. That's pointless. When Rory raised this topic a few weeks ago, similar points were made. If we want to strategically address the takeover threat, we need to look at organizational changes that make OSMF an unattractive takeover threat. 

Finally, I've seen no evidence of demand for a "supporter membership" that allows people to make a financial contribution without involvement. It is easy enough to donate without membership on https://donate.openstreetmap.org/. Perhaps supporter membership could lead to more donations or recurring donations. Perhaps not. We need to do at least some research to determine if it's a good idea.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron