[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