[OSM-talk] STFU

[Christopher Woods (IWD)]

On 02/02/2013 22:07, Paweł Paprota wrote:
> On 02/02/2013 10:23 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
>> Threats to leave the project remind me of the bullshit thrown around
>>  during licence-change when hardly anyone actually had the balls to
>> follow through. If people are so unhappy then go, but do so quickly
>> and quietly and leave the people really interested in OSM to continue
>> making the very best map database we can.
>
> So you don't acknowledge that there are people (like me) who are "really
> interested in OSM" and same time they are discouraged by a situation
> like this and are considering leaving the project?
>
> By your logic either everyone has to STFU and agree with the actions of
> OSMF or they have to leave the project because they are not really
> interested in OSM.
>
> Paweł

Everybody volunteers their time and knowledge but the existence of a 
board at OSMF doesn't simply mean that some volunteers are now more 
equal than others. (Organisations frequently rotate through board members.)

Thinking about structure, some discussion should be given as to OSMF 
possibly converting to a co-operative structure - it's the perfect type 
of organisation to benefit from a co-op arrangement, either an IPS 
Mutual, BenCom or even workers co-op. People can be nominated to 
represent the org but ultimately they are answerable to all Members. It 
can also seek investment and those members can also gain one vote 
(irrespective of contribution) in company business.

As it is, OSMF seems notionally answerable to the greater OSM community 
after being nominated to oversee its concerns and become custodian of 
the equipment, run outreach projects, fundraise etc. The board is 
elected by just 358 paid OSMF members from (we can only assume) the OSM 
community (of thousands? Tens of thousands?). The work they do is 
fabulous and contributes to the continuation of OSM but there's still 
not, that I can see, a sufficiently stable framework in place should 
this arrangement change.

If OSMF decided to function differently, selectively disregard the 
community or even operate oligarchically as 'benevolent dictators' what 
could be done? Not much short of an insurrection or establishment of 
parallel service with a new name as they hold all the cards. A worldwide 
project deserves membership representation and answerability of the 
controlling board.

My concern here comes from seeing other community organisations torn 
apart by subsets of nominated people who initially took charge, ran it 
with some vision, decisiveness but when they got cold feet or wanted a 
change, the organisation inevitably ran onto the rocks through lack of 
continuity and attrition. It's often very hard to resurrect a project or 
organisation once it's ground to a halt.