[Osmf-talk] Fwd: Re: Possible AoA Amendment #2: Your boss can't force you to vote a certain way

[mail at marcos-martinez.net]

I am staggered we are even discussing this. The better our map gets (and
it really does) the number of bigger and more powerful companies,
especially the big players, will put serious effort in either taking
control of OSM or at least steer it into a direction that serves their
interest -  I am sure they are least in thinking about those options.
Taking into consideration the vast amount these companies invest in
creating and updating their maps, the amount and detail of our data is
surely worth a few billions of $. Tendency increasing. We may not be at
the point we are a real threat, probably only a growing pain in the ass
of which they'd like to take advantage of as long as possible. But that
point will come and we need to be prepared as thoroughly as possible.
And when it comes there will be no more Mr. Niceguy, open to
collaboration. 

Let me compare it with running a nuclear power plant. The potential
consequences IF something goes wrong can be so catastrophic we should be
aligned on minimizing the risk to an absolute minimum without harming
the community at the same time. IMHO, in this sense it is not
superfluous at all to carve in stone some things that we take for
granted and which even might not have been at risk until now because
nobody has tried YET (just improvising, no idea if these random
statements are already implemented yet): 

 	* A company must never run or vote as such in OSM with more weight
than one individual mapper.
 	* A company must never ever try to undermine the foundation or the
project itself by massive signups with puppet members. We might not be
able to identify it in most cases at this point of time but IF we do by
any means (e.g. leaks, improved analysis and reporting capabilities) our
cooperation will immediately end.
 	* A company that donates money will never have the final decision
about what the money will be used for.
 	* OSM data must never be used for services that harm human rights

Cheers, Marcos Martinez 

Am 25.10.2020 09:37, schrieb Andy Allan:

> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 at 00:56, Michal Migurski via osmf-talk
> <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote: 
> 
>> I don't think it's a legitimate risk or a real problem. None of the commercial organizations where I or my OSM community works would consider such a high-risk, low-reward move. I'm not aware of other organizations with an interest in undermining OSM's established governance or the motivation to do so.
> 
> I find this statement naive to the point of incredulity. It's less
> than 2 years since we had to deal with one company directing over 100
> employees to sign up for membership mere hours before the election
> deadline. Have you really forgotten this already?
> 
> This wasn't even the first attempt at doing so; I'm personally aware
> of two other attempts since OSMF was formed. Given that I've never
> been a member of the MWG nor the Board, nor do I have any insights
> into the internals of other organisations, then these three attempts
> are merely the lower limit on the true number. So beyond just the 2018
> event, I would say that organised corporate influence attempts on
> board elections is a real, and recurring, threat to the OSMF, and not
> one that can be so lightly dismissed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201025/e20f80ad/attachment.htm>