[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites

Kathleen Lu kathleen.lu at mapbox.com
Fri Oct 23 16:31:36 UTC 2020


1. The only way that a "supporter" membership makes sense is if there are a
lot of people who want to financially help OSM, but aren't inclined to
vote, so not counting then helps with meeting quorum. But wouldn't it be
easier to set up a reoccurring donation mechanism in the website?
2. What is going to be you test criteria for membership? Can the board
change the criteria at will? I don't think it's reasonable for the board to
impose a test without telling people ahead of time what the test will be,
nor do I think it's reasonable for the board to be able to change that test
after the vote. That would seem to be a bait and switch, and could lead to
an abusive board barring membership to everyone except their friends
3. Are you going to retroactively scrutinize the memberships of all current
members? If so, how are you going to do that? If not, where's the fairness
principle in judging new members by standards not applied to old members?



On Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 5:42 AM Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201023/f6bbddbf/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list