[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites

[Tobias Knerr]

Hi all,

some people have expressed concerns that this resolution needs more time
and more careful consideration. Therefore, I would like to hear your
feedback on the alternative approach included below.

The main change is that this resolution would task the board + MWG with
working on a proposed resolution, or set of resolutions, for a general
meeting next year. The final decision would then be made by a membership
vote at that meeting. This means that it will take longer for the
measure to be implemented (which could potentially be lessened by having
a second, earlier general meeting in 2021 specifically to decide on AoA
changes and resolutions), but it would allow the membership to have a
more specific suggestion in front of them before making their decision.


## Potential text of the resolution:

The board of directors shall, together with the OSMF Membership Working
Group, work on a set of proposals to ensure that all successful
applicants for membership or associate membership in the OpenStreetMap
Foundation have made a reasonable amount of contributions to
OpenStreetMap. The specific form of the contributions (e.g. mapping vs.
non-mapping) does not make difference for the fulfilment of these
prerequisites. The board shall submit these proposals as possible
resolutions at a general meeting in 2021.

## 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.

Until the next general meeting, the board and MWG would have time to
perform a more thorough legal and community review. The membership would
then be presented with a set of fully-fleshed out proposals to adopt or
reject.

A possible implementation could be based on powers under §15 of the
Articles of Association. Unlike the fee waiver, eligibility would then
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. Other
implementations, e.g. based on a change to the Articles of Association,
would be feasible as well.

-- 

Tobias