[OSM-talk] Modus operandi of the board
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Wed Oct 22 13:53:29 UTC 2014
On Wednesday 22 October 2014, Kate Chapman wrote:
> One issue is we really have no idea what the OSMF membership wants.
> We know what some vocal people who write English well want. [...]
This is certainly something that would be much easier if there was more
transparency on the work of the OSMF bodies.
As already widely mentioned the minutes are the only public
documentation and as such extrememely sparse but beyond that they are
published without the possibility to comment and ask questions. IMO
the only way the OSM community can interpret that is that input on the
topics mentioned there by ordinary community members is not wanted.
I cannot really form a qualified opinion from the outside of course but
to me the whole subject of transparency supports the impression Richard
communicated that the OSMF board is inherently broken. At least three
current members of the board have expressed the opinion here that
transparency is a major issue but yet improvements during the past year
on this matter are marginal at best, at least from what is publicly
To give a specific example how the current scarcity of public
documentation of the work looks like:
At the beginning of the year the lack of attribution in uses of OSM data
was subject in the board minutes and various decisions were made:
There is no follow-up on this subject in any of the later meetings this
year according to the minutes.
There is mentioning in the LWG minutes from
> The board has asked the LWG to follow up on the issue of insufficient
> attribution by larger OSM based service providers.
And then in the most recent minutes from the mangement team
> No substantive action on being more aggressive on making sure that
> folks attribute us, (board request).
This is just an example - there are a lot of other similar case - but
this seems particularly useful since it is an issue of potential
interest to all OSM mappers and not just OSMF members.
Apart from the ambiguities and contradictions in what is written the
impression you get here from the outside without having been in any of
the meeting is that a topic has been discussed in at least three bodies
of the OSMF (board, MT and LWG) with essentially no results beyond the
initial statement. Now i don't want to say everybody has been lazy or
unproductive, esp. not the LWG who have done some great work on the
community guidelines recently but the minutes certainly fail to meet
their purpose as comprehensive documentation of the work of the OSMF
More information about the talk