[Osmf-talk] Updated membership prerequisites plan

[Simon Poole]

Am 08.06.2022 um 22:55 schrieb Roland Olbricht:
> .....
> Are you missing the resolution for the general meeting? Basically
> because we don't know if the approach works and finds general acclaim,
> this is installed in a way that it can be reversed rather quickly for
> the moment being. We may have a resolution on the next AGM in half a
> year, and anyway then have experience whether it works.

Basically at the time we were sold that approving the resolution would 
simply mandate the board / MWG to go off and study the problem, and that 
the board then would come back with some suggestions on restricting 
membership, that there is no harm in investigating what could be done 
and then we could have a yes / no vote on what ever the board suggested.

>
> > the problem is that you are simply not offering the
> > membership any alternative to the path the board has decided to go down
> > on a very controversial matter.
>
> Again, I'm sorry, I have no idea on what you mean here. In my
> perspective we are running an experiment and collecting data at the
> moment, not making a decision.

We have been told in no uncertain terms that the board has decided that 
the membership restrictions will be put in place and that, at best, 
input from the membership might be considered for fine tuning the 
restrictions.

> If we were facing a pile of rejected
> not-yet-members then it would be indeed a decision to never let those
> people reapply. I'm not aware of any.
>
That is the problem, the board hasn't given us any numbers, rationale or 
anything that would justify giving up the principle of an open 
membership as an emergency measure, instead of having a discussion and a 
vote  Are we under attack? Or has the board learnt of a plan to do so?  
Is there anything that justifies the rush to short cut the process?

If there is not an issue with an imminent takeover attempt, why are we 
not hearing from the committee specifically put in place to study the 
issue that such restrictions would be a good idea as a preventive measure?

As to my personal position on the issue, as I pointed out back in 2020: 
declaring that participation in the OSMF was open to all interested 
parties was a conscious decision at the time and the board was well 
aware that there were certain risks involved. Reversing that sends a 
negative signal, and before agreeing to do so, I would at least want to 
hear from the board on the pros and cons, what the reputational and 
other impacts will be, so that I can make an informed decision.

Simon

> This mail is my personal opinion, not the statement of the board.
>
> Roland
>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> 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 --------------
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/20220609/a29d6da4/attachment.sig>