[Osmf-talk] Draft resolution on membership prerequisites
aschonberger at posteo.us
aschonberger at posteo.us
Mon Feb 14 17:07:12 UTC 2022
I agree with ~42 days of contributions, especially since it sounds like transations, writing code, wiki editing, and answering questions would count for those days. I would suggest a requirement to disclose employment by or volunteer work for any company or organization that is (to the member's knowledge) involved with openstreetmap with failure to do so possibly leading to a revocation of membership. this would make it easier to respond if a takeover attempt is found out.
- Alex
On 2/14/22 10:43 AM, Steve Friedl <steve at unixwiz.net> wrote:
> I’m not involved in the current discussions (and am certainly not
> speaking for anybody else), but I know what prompted it: this is
> entirely about anti-takeover, and nothing else.
>
> The GlobalLogic incident around the 2018 election made it clear this is
> something OSM has to worry about: what if some MegaCorp paid for 1000
> (or 10000) employees to become OSMF members and thus essentially pay for
> a slate of Board seats?
>
> *Everybody* should worry about this, and it’s a big enough deal that the
> membership passed a resolution in the 2020 AGM stating that OSMF should
> investigate how to ensure that applications for Foundation membership
> have contributed to the OSM ecosystem.
>
> So the question is how one can create an anti-takeover system that
> INCLUDES those who are truly involved in OpenStreetMap, but EXCLUDES
> bought-and-paid-for memberships solely to vote for Mega Corp’s slate.
>
> My understanding is that OSMF would define qualifying contributions to
> OSM on a _very_ broad and inclusive basis: mapping (of course),
> participating in a working group; organizing map-a-thons, building a
> local chapter, contributing source code, and all the things you
> mentioned. These make the whole OpenStreetMap ecosystem richer.
>
> I have not heard one whiff that this is meant to create a selective
> old-boy’s club (but I see how it could look that way), and I can’t think
> of anybody truly involved in OpenStreetMap who would not **easily**
> qualify for membership in the Foundation.
>
> And my experience is that most people who get involved in Foundation
> business didn’t start out that way, but started out doing actual regular
> mapping: getting 42 lifetime days of mapping in your past seems like a
> relatively low bar.
>
> But MegaCorp getting 1000 employees (who don’t care about OSM one way or
> the other) to do this would be a much bigger challenge.
>
> In any case, this was just a proposal, and I’m glad to see there’s a
> good discussion. I’m not sure what I think about this yet, if only
> because of the work that would get dropped on the Membership Working
> Group to make it so. But I’m coming around.
>
> Those with alternate proposals to protect OSMF from takeover are welcome
> to chime in.
>
> Steve – who really is not speaking for anybody else
>
> *From:* Imre Samu <pella.samu at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 13, 2022 12:56 PM
> *To:* Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
> *Cc:* OSMF Talk <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Osmf-talk] Draft resolution on membership prerequisites
>
> > "... contributed to OpenStreetMap on at least 42 days. The specific
> form of the contributions
>
> > (e.g. mapping vs. non-mapping) does not make a difference for the
> fulfilment of these prerequisites"
>
> What is the *definition of "non-mapping"* contributions?
>
> - SOTM conference organizers?
>
> - OSM wiki editing / translating?
>
> - Discussing tagging problems in OpenStreetMap mailing list?
>
> - solving problems in https://help.openstreetmap.org/
> <https://help.openstreetmap.org/>
>
> - Open-source commits - related to osm?
>
> - Creating tutorials in "non-english" language?
>
> - ...
>
> But probably we need to separate the contributions by payments.
>
> - voluntarily ( non-paid contributing )
>
> - paid by non-profit
>
> - paid by a for-profit company
>
> // "paid contributions" --> ~"paid votes"
>
> And some *"Hippocratic Oath for OSM voting members*" will be useful.
>
> like the "Hippocratic Oath for Data Scientists / The ethical checklist
> that every data scientist must follow"
>
> https://towardsdatascience.com/hippocratic-oath-for-data-scientists-407d2db15a78
> <https://towardsdatascience.com/hippocratic-oath-for-data-scientists-407d2db15a78>
>
> The "Hippocratic Oath for OSM voting members"(ethical rules) will be
> useful for hostile takeover protection.
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Committee_on_Takeover_Protection
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Committee_on_Takeover_Protection>
>
> So my suggestions to consider:
>
> - inventing a "Hippocratic Oath for OSM voting members" (ethical rules)
>
> - prefer "un-paid" commitments ( self-declaration )
>
> kind regards,
>
> Imre
>
> Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de <mailto:osm at tobias-knerr.de>> ezt írta
> (időpont: 2022. febr. 13., V, 17:28):
>
> Hi all,
>
> at the 2020 AGM, a 79% majority of the membership asked the board to
> propose prerequisites for membership in the OSM Foundation which would
> ensure that all applicants for membership have made a reasonable amount
> of contributions to OSM (not necessarily through mapping).[1]
>
> We would like to ask for your feedback to a first draft of this
> proposal
> which you can read below. It uses a definition for "reasonable
> amount of
> contributions" that is comparable to the active contributor
> membership[2], but has lower requirements: 42 days of contributions
> ever
> instead of 42 days per year. Existing memberships would not be affected
> by this change.
>
> The 2020 resolution called for a membership vote on this topic in 2021.
> Unfortunately, the board didn't produce a proposal in time for the 2021
> AGM and we would like to apologize for this delay. Our current plan is
> to have the resolution ready for a general meeting on April 30, 2022.
>
>
> # 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 demonstrably contributed to
> OpenStreetMap on at least 42 days. The specific form of the
> contributions (e.g. mapping vs. non-mapping) does not make a difference
> for the fulfilment of these prerequisites. The board may delegate
> verification and rejection of membership applications to a working
> group.
>
> ## 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 take inspiration from the fee waiver (known as active
> contributor membership) to allow using a similar implementation. 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. Existing memberships won't be affected.
>
> ## Considerations:
>
> This one-time check applies to all member applications including those
> that pay the regular £15 membership fee.
>
>
> # Footnotes
>
> [1]
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/2020/Suggested_resolutions#Vote_3:_Work_on_membership_prerequisites
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/2020/Suggested_resolutions#Vote_3:_Work_on_membership_prerequisites>
> [2] https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/
> <https://join.osmfoundation.org/active-contributor-membership/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list