[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites

[Michael Cheng]

In many ways, the move to "open" anything is a gambit. Be it open source,
open data or open governance. When you "open" up anything, you're betting
the benefits of being open outweigh the costs. Sometimes it works out,
sometimes it doesn't.

When it doesn't work out, or when folks regret being "too open" for various
reasons, some accept as part and parcel of the gambit and try to make the
best of it. Others try to course correct by changing the rules of the game
-- often turning to legal solutions to re-write governance rules or
licenses.

MongoDB is the most notable example of this. They also regretted being too
open. They did not like Amazon monetizing their open source code in an
unexpected manner so they re-licensed the AGPL to the SSPL
<https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/16/mongodb-switches-up-its-open-source-license/>
in a direct play to try to exclude Amazon from its user community. They
initially tried to sell it to us as being good for the community or what
the community wants but eventually just admitted that they don't care at
all about the community,
<https://www.protocol.com/mongodb-open-source-database> and gave up trying
to certify the SSPL as open source
<https://digitizingpolaris.com/mongodb-withdraws-new-open-source-license-application-d96e4d0bcd8c>
and
gave up most of the pretense of being "open".

MongoDB started out wanting to attract as many people to its community as
possible through the promise of open source. People came from far and wide.
Some were interested in the tech, some wanted community and others wanted
to make money. Amazon and other cloud providers made money in a way that
didn't fit with their business strategy so Mongo moved away from open
source to protect its business. For Mongo, it made sense to move from more
"open" to less "open" or closed.

There are some parallels between the Mongo story and many of the
discussions we are having here in OSM. Tobias's proposal wants to define
the community mainly as contributors - and specifically individual
contributors who the Board deems worthy. A more exclusive community for
contributors, by contributors. Any exclusivity of any type has to by
definition exclude certain groups. And in this case, it seems like everyone
else who does not meet the Board's standard may now be excluded from a
member. This proposal reads like a move from away from "open" to "less
open". From a big tentpole with all kinds of folks to more of a country
club model where folks have to prove their worth.

We're all here because we are interested in open maps, but we're not all
going to the same places with varying goals and personas. OSM is a lot
bigger and more diverse than it once was. Managing this diversity and
difference of opinion is hard work - a nearly impossible task for a
volunteer-driven organization. To deal with this, one option is to decide
that this diversity doesn't need to be managed and prioritize some
constituents at the exclusion of others. That seems to be the aim of the
contemplated proposal. Another option is to determine that more inclusive
and diverse communities can be stronger together at the cost of more
governance "overhead" and invest in creating more formal structures to
facilitate group decision making. Both are valid options and have their own
pluses and minuses.

I think this is the real question that Allan and the Board should address
-- whether end-users, integrators, companies or others should be part of
the community or not.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 1:15 PM Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:

> Hello OSMF members,
>
> another idea the board has worked on is to make some kind of
> contributions to OSM a prerequisite for becoming a member in the OSMF.
> This would go well with the idea of a new, non-voting "supporter"
> membership class for people who simply wish to support OSM financially,
> but this vote would only establish if there should be such a requirement
> at all.
>
> As with the other potential resolutions for the annual general meeting
> (AGM) we shared today, this is currently just an idea. It's not a final
> text, and the board has not yet decided whether to ask the members to
> vote on something along these lines the AGM.
>
> Also, this would not be an AoA change: The board already has the power
> to reject membership applications. But seeing how we haven't made much
> use of this ability in the past, it's probably worth making sure that
> the membership actually likes the change, and a formal vote at the AGM
> would achieve this.
>
> ## Potential text of the resolution:
>
> Using its powers under §15 of the Articles of Association, the board of
> directors shall reject applications for membership or associate
> membership if the applicant has not demonstrated significant
> contributions to OpenStreetMap, for example by mapping. The OSMF
> Membership Working Group will, together with the Board of Directors,
> define what counts as “significant contributions”, and the definition
> will ultimately be affirmed by a decision of the Board of Directors.
>
> ## 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.
>
> Unlike the fee waiver, eligibility will 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.
>
> --
>
> 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/20201025/6908304e/attachment.htm>