[OSM-talk] Summary of the irc meeting.

Andy Robinson Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Apr 7 14:27:02 BST 2006


I've kept quiet till now. But Etienne makes a very valid set of points.

My feelings are:

1. There should not be discrimination against membership, that would be
disallowed by law probably anyway. I'm all for having a very low membership
requirement, at least in the first instance. All membership would be
renewable, probably yearly, but that's for the initial governing body to
decide.

2. The membership process should be simple to effect and manage. Basically a
new database holding the data required to manage the membership base with
access for the membership Secretary and the officers of OSMF only.

3. Ultimately (once OSMF is properly established), details on membership
need to include a contact name and address (obtained in line with data
protection requirements).

4. If we suspect voting fraud (exceeding one member, one vote) then we
investigate if we think it affects the result of any vote. Otherwise we
ignore as irrelevant, or deal with in due course and cancel the membership
of the individual.

5. As the project grows, the needs will change, but that doesn't need to be
discussed anytime soon

Andy 


Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Etienne Cherdlu
>Sent: 07 April 2006 12:47
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Summary of the irc meeting.
>
>Are we trying to create a membership that is inclusive or one that is
>elitist?
>
>The only way this is going to be a great project is to have a very
>inclusive membership.  We need as many members as possible.  Requiring
>passports, GPG signatures, or any other kind of awkwardness will just
>deter members.  There are plenty of other projects out there competing
>for volunteers time.
>
>The only criteria that works for me is to use some kind of measure of
>the amount that a person contributes to the project.  If you have
>contributed then you have a right to some say in the project.
>
>If a person can be bothered to create 10 identities and then
>contributes 10x more then they probably deserve 10 votes.  We need
>people that do 10x more work.
>
>How workable would some thresholds like these be, for example?
>Any one of the following entitles a user to be a member (for 1 year):
>- Committing 100 lines of useful code to cvs
>- Upload 100,000 gps track points
>- Creating 1,000 new nodes, segments or ways
>- Donating $100
>- Making 200 useful edits on the Wiki
>
>Etienne
>
>On 4/7/06, Jim Ley <jim at jibbering.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Immanuel Scholz" <immanuel.scholz at gmx.de> wrote in message
>> news:60036.80.246.32.40.1144408982.squirrel at www.eigenheimstrasse.de...
>>
>> > So your conclusion is, that the security by using signed GPG-ids as a
>> > requirement to become member of OSMF is too easy to bypass and the
>> > problems we get with ensuring it at all aren't worth the effort?
>>
>> No, my conclusion is it would unreasonably preclude people who could not
>get
>> signed GPG-ids and those people unwilling to have signed GPG-ids.
>>
>> The other stuff was just to illustrate that it doesn't prevent duplicate
>> people so if that's a design constraint it's not really meeting it.   Of
>> course there's very little that does other than only in person voting...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jim.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
>--
>Etienne
>(Forgot to reply to the list again)
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk







More information about the talk mailing list