[Osmf-talk] Possible vote on membership prerequisites

[Simon Poole]

I does need to be underlined that this would be significant change in 
policy for the foundation. Currently anybody with an interest in the 
project is welcomed to become a member and that was a deliberate 
decision and statement.

While the board could simply propose this at the next GM, I can 
understand it wanting to have some support in proposing the (U-turn) 
change in the 1st place.

What I'm missing however is any analysis of the impact, for example how 
many members the OSMF would have to be expelled, how many OSM 
contributors would be eligible, how the board is proposing to deal with 
any negative image fallout from this, and so on.

Simon

Am 30.10.2020 um 13:33 schrieb john whelan:
> So we are saying that those who support our aims should not be allowed 
> membership unless they map?
>
> Many find our maps useful.  There are those who are partially sighted 
> for example, asking them to map first before showing support by 
> joining OSM is creating a barrier to entry.  Then we have the 
> multitude of small businesses who print out or use our map to show 
> where their businesses are.  They have no interest in mapping but OSM 
> makes a very useful contribution to their business.
>
> I've long thought that consumers of our data or end users if you like 
> often have their desires ignored.  For practically everything else the 
> end consumers have some impact. With osm they get what we give them.
>
> If we lowered the membership fee to ten euros but invited a wider 
> range of membership that would help block any takeover bids and might 
> even raise a few more euros.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020, 06:56 Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de 
> <mailto:osm at tobias-knerr.de>> wrote:
>
>     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
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201031/e8145c80/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 4922 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201031/e8145c80/attachment.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201031/e8145c80/attachment.sig>