Talk:Foundation/AGM17/Election to Board

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Questions to OSMF board candidates

Here are questions from the OSM community to the candidates for the OSMF board elections. In advance thanks to all candidates for standing for election and for answering questions. Please view these questions as a possibility to articulate your views on matters that might be important for OSM community members. And please state freely if you have not formed an opinion on a question or are unable to answer it based on your current knowledge. Please also feel encouraged to state if your position on a question is a firm conviction or if what you say is just an opinion. Also if English is not your native language and you feel you cannot properly express your ideas on a certain question in English feel free to answer in your native language.

It is probably best if you give your answers inline in a wiki discussion style but you are of course also free to integrate your answers into a general manifesto. See the elections from 2014, 2015 and 2016 for reference.

A request to those asking questions: Please be respectful in your tone and try to phrase questions in an open way without already implying a certain answer or trick questions which are superficially about something else than what you want to know. Also you should give enough context to your questions, possibly with links, so they can be understood by any interested community member and not just insiders familiar with the specific subject and by any candidate so both long term active members and newcomers have an equal chance of giving you an accurate and honest answer.

Questions on questions

I think we have outgrown this format of asking questions of board candidates. With over 800 OSMF members, I don't see how we could use this format to collect and sort out all the possible questions, in a way that doesn't completely overload the candidates and the members. At the very least, we need to limit the number of questions posed by individual members, so that everyone has an opportunity. Even better would be to move to another format, like an AMA, or a series of live chats. --Mikel

Wow, that is quite a statement considering the introduction above which gives candidates every freedom to address questions from the community in any form they see fit. The OSM community is obviously also free to approach the candidates in any other form. What you call outgrown others might call time honored tradition. Moving to a different, likely less egalitarian format for questioning (live chats would for example clearly discriminate people not fluent in English on both sides) would be a big step back.
And even if the questions below were meaningless and excessive (which they are not) - it would be a good test for candidates how they are able to cope with such a situation.
Finally it seems to me that trying to change the procedure while the call for candidates is already running and questions have already been asked reeks a bit of an attempt to politically influence the process (and has the potential to sidetrack from the important process of candidates getting in contact with the community about their ideas and intentions). If you want to develop the pre-election discourse there are better times to do so than now.
--Imagico (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Whoa there Imagico, don't go overboard over a simple comment. All I'm suggesting is that a format where 16 questions are posed by one person might not be fair to the community or the candidates. I think an AMA would be great. -Mikel
The main difference between what we do here and an AMA (meaning Ask Me Anything by the way - for those who don't know) is that here all candidates get the same questions and can answer in parallel. An AMA is by definition a 1:n situation (one candidate answers questions from anyone who wants to ask). This comes with a lot of problems in election situations (i.e. where you need to compare candidates) - like the possibility for astroturfing (people flooding the questionnaire of their favorite candidate with favorable questions).
I think there is room for improvement to the way candidate nomination and campaigning is performed for the OSMF board - in particular it would be good to prepare a primer and a template for a kind of OSM related CV to potential candidates to avoid the need for basic questions (because based on the primer candidates would likely already have provided this info in advance) but the time to do that is after the election IMO - not now.
--Imagico (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting idea. Since for me AMA is synonymous with Reddit, I've posted an AMA there. Joost schouppe (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest we shelve this discussion until after the AGM, because it would be unfair to everyone involved to attempt to change the rules while the game is ongoing. Having a discussion on how we expect candidates to present themselves and just how far the community may, or should, go in "grilling" them is certainly valuable; let's take this to the osmf-talk list after this election cycle. --Frederik Ramm (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am not shy to answer your questions and will do so after work hours in the coming days. As for "grilling", I've worked in technology for years. I once had 11 - 1 hour interviews for an organization (paid job). The process, like others, could use a refresh. Truly, I am also happy to have an online chat or AMA as well. Nothing replaces the Human API. As for my CV - see my linked in account: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherleson/ HeatherLeson (talk)
Yes, agree, we can improve this process. Frederik, sure makes sense to wait. There's never enough time though -- hope we get to post AGM! -Mikel
(live chats would for example clearly discriminate people not fluent in English on both sides)) live audio/video chats could have a harmful affect on diversity, by introducing unconscience biases. From someone's voice/image you can nearly always determine a person's gender, ethnicity, race, class, etc. Orchestras have had success interviewing candidates behind screens so that the interviewers cannot tell the applicants gender. Audio/video chat also discriminates against people without good quality internet connectivity, without powerful enough equipment, or without a quiet place to conduct such an interview. Update: (How did I forget this?) And of course audio/video chats completly exclude people who are blind, deaf or hard of hearing. Rorym (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this professional consideration, especially about discrimination as this topic is very close to my heart. This is an open community. As a leader, I am accustomed to people watching videos as one channel of communication. This interview is by 800 people, so it follows that everyone would like content in various forms. As such, I am more than happy to respond to questions on multiple community and communication channels. As such, I propose that I answer all the questions here. And, if people would like to talk via skype or mumble, I am happy to do so. Regarding translation tools, I am glad you brought that up. Surely with so many bright contributors we can find ways to connect across languages. HeatherLeson (talk)

Your activities

It is sometimes difficult to get an overview over the activities of someone you don't know. That's why I ask you, the candidates, to tell us, the members how you contributed the project you want to represent. If you have answered these questions in your manifesto, just drop a short notice as your answer.

Your activities as mapper

Please give me a short list of your contributions to OSM (mapping only). Have you edited using multiple OSM accounts which are not listed on your user page? You do not have to reveal their names.
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this question. My OSM account is HeatherLeson, there are tools to discover how many edits I have made. In my diary entry, I note that there are multiple ways to contribute to OSM. I would like to propose a revision of your question - "How many times have you hosted mapathons (How many participants))or presented OSM." This would be great KPIs to add to the wiki and to any candidate's interview. Response: The first time I hosted OSM as part of an event was in 2010. Thanks Richard Weait for bringing OSM to my life and for introducing it to the community. There was 60 participants. The last time was today where we had 35 people. Many of them were first time mappers. OSM has been part of my events since 2010. On average I have hosted 20 events a year with about 30 - 150 participants. OSM is in countless talks and presentations. You can find these on youtube and on slideshare. Thanks again.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
I've been editing at least every other day since the end of 2012. Because JOSM reminds me too much of work, I mostly use Potlatch, iD and sometimes Mapcontrib or Level0. My mapping work is quite varied: lots of roads, surveying paths, fixing smaller things; but also hiking relations and admin boundaries
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Your activities as developer

Please give me a short list of your contributions to OSM as software developer. Which OSM related software and websites do/did you develop? Please give me a short list and/or a link to your Github profile. Are there any other open source projects you contributed and you want to be known?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not a software developer and have not contributed code to OSM or to any other OS software projects. Software and internet technologies have been part of my life since 1991. My first email account was Pine and I had Freenet at Carleton University. Since that time, I have worked on software projects throughout my career. Details here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherleson/ Github https://github.com/heatherleson. Most of my work in software has been ITIL focused - change management and incident management with dashes of user experience and functional specs. Oh, a few years in tech support: "Did you plug the modem in?"
Regarding OS projects, my contributions include being part of the initial volunteer team on Open Badges with Mozilla and running multiple sessions at Mozfest. At Ushahidi, I lead the user experience work for v3 and was part of the team that turned the base default to OSM. At Open Knowledge, I worked on mutiple activities promoting open data/open source - OKCON/OKFest and School of Data activities. At Qatar Foundation, I supported a team of researchers who used OSM data for urban resilience studies.eg. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sofiane_Abbar. I ran the first ever OpenData Day in Qatar followed by speaking at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Digital Incubation Center on how open data and open maps could help startups. At IFRC, I ran the first ever open data day and make OSM a feature of every single event. The organization just signed up for Missing Maps which means that OSM is getting used for programs. Over the years, I have written articles for opensource.com, World Economic Forum and Civicus data shift - featuring about OSM. I've been to OSCON 3 times and hosted sessions about digital humanitarians, including OSM.
http://civicus.org/thedatashift/learning-zone/community-essay/citizen-generated-data-maps/ https://opensource.com/users/hleson https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/how-is-social-media-helping-disaster-response/
--HeatherLeson (talk)
Not a developer, though I do program stuff in SPSS. Being involved in OSM has pushed me to learn new things, and I've picked up a bit of Overpass QL, Python, Javascript etc along the way. But not nearly enough to actually build stuff myself. I understand enough about programming to be able to make understandable feature requests - you'll find my github account to be more about Issues than Pull requests. My GIS experience is useful to help with setting up algorithms, e.g. I'm deeply involved in the Road completion project. I'm also quite happy with tools like Mapcontrib and UMAP, which bring a lot of power to non-programmers who aren't afraid of a query.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

OSMF Working Groups

How are you involved in the working groups of the OSMF? What did you do there exactly?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I joined the OSM community in 2010. During that time, I was on the Board of Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (4 years) (general member, President and Secretary) plus actively participated in the Governance Working Group. Until now, I have not participated in the OSMF working groups. Commitment is important and I only had so much volunteer time to offer in lieu of my job(s) and the 5 - 10 hours a week that I was donating to OSM. Now, I wish to donate this time to OMSF.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
I have only been involved in a working group through my support of the SotM in Brussels. Most of my "formal" OSM work is with OSM Belgium, where I'm on the first board. Informally, I've been working with people from many different communities.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Other OSM related activity

Which other OSM related activity do you want to be known because it is not mentioned in your responses above?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I have been thinking about getting a compass or OSM tattoo. Surely there is a page of designs somewhere? OSM has been included in my job remits and volunteer time since 2010.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
My OSM profile is filled to the brink with stuff you should read.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

OSM and business

Please answer the questions in this section even if you answered them in your manifesto.

Note: The term business also includes non-profit and charity organisations with a turnover of more than EUR 300,000 per year.

Your personal business involvement

Do you use OSM for business purposes? Do you earn money by developing OSM-related software/websites? Do you earn money by editing at OSM (also known as paid mapping)? Are you involved in any business as a volunteer ?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

OSM is used for Missing Maps activities and IFRC is a member of Missing Maps. I have not paid people for mapping. Though, I have paid for food and drink out of my own pocket on many occassions. This question seems to place a difference on contributions that we should tackle as a community. How would linux rate this or Mozilla or ubuntu? Business is one stakeholder in OSM. NGOs are one stakeholder. Each of us are individual stakeholders.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
I don't make money from working with OSM (except for a one time data analysis job). I've been trying to get OSM used more at work (data analysis for government local policy). I don't do any formal volunteering.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Motivation to join OSM

How did you join OSM? Who introduced to OSM? Why did you join OSM?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I was sold on OSM the moment I saw the video of Kate Chapman demoing it in 2010. Then, a short week later, Richard Weait provided a great in person intro for me and many others at a hackathon that I ran. I joined because the impact of OSM resonated with me and I wanted to help more people get engaged.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
It's all Osmands fault. Got a smartphone, needed a decent map, spotted a mistake. The rest is history. If you want a more serious reply, read my What I like about OpenStreetMap diary post or my Mapper of the Month interview.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

In case you work for or are involved with companies/organizations that are working with OSM in some form (see related question above) how do you plan to ensure your work on the board is not affected by conflicts of interest? Note in the past candidates and board members have most commonly answered this question kind of evasively by stating that if they become aware of a conflict of interest they are going to recuse themseves from decisions. I am looking for answers here beyond this, in particular how you think possible conflicts of interest can be avoided where you are not aware they exist.

A practical example to illustrate the relevance: Recently the possible regulation of organized editing activities in OSM has been a topic in the OSMF and the board has tasked the DWG (Data Working Group) with developing a policy. Despite the fact that several board members are employed by companies that would likely be affected by such a policy there has been no declaration of a potential conflict of interest so far.
--Imagico (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My employer is IFRC, you can find the code of conduct and other policies on ifrc.org. When I was on the HOT board and topics/decisions involved my employer, I recused myself. This is a practice as per Robert's Rules of Order. Regarding the 'data policy' discussion, this is one of the reasons that I want to be part of governance. OSM could review how other open source organizations manage this. They often have businesses involved in their work. Lastly, this question with the clarification seems a bit 'loaded'. One priority that I have is that we revise Codes of conduct. We are individuals - professional and, hopefully, kind. Often, I have read OSM comments that range from kind to 'accussatory' to 'downright mean'. We and our mission are so much bigger than that. There are solutions and conversations to happen across all types of conflicts.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
My work is sufficiently independent from OSM to ensure this won't be a problem. If you can imagine a situation where it wouldn't, willing to think about it.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Conferences

How often did you attend SotM?

How often did you attend the State of the Map conference? Please mention the years and the locations. How often did someone pay you the expenses? Who paid the expenses?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

SotM US 2014 - I paid
SotM Taiwan 2015 - Taiwanese community - Thanks!
SOtM (Brussels) 2016 - I paid
HOT Summit (Brussels) 2016 -I paid
SOtM Asia (Nepal) 2017 - I was there already for work.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
SotM at Buenos Aires 2014 - flight ticket LPB-EZE paid by ABF research. I used their software to present statistics about OSM.
SotM at Brussels 2016 - self-funded. Was part of the organizing comite.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Did you attend a local OSM conference?

How often did you attend other OSM conferences conference? Please mention the years and the locations. How often did someone pay you the expenses? Who paid the expenses?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

See above.
--HeatherLeson (talk)
I've attended a few local Foss4g events and organized an OSM track at the last Foss4g.be. No money involved.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Trademark OpenStreetMap

What is your opinion on the draft of the current draft of the Trademark Policy?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: the LWG has a couple of mainly editorial changes to the draft that haven't been reflected in the wiki version yet, for now pls refer to the github version of the draft SimonPoole (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Board Term Limits

Should the terms of members of the board of OSMF be limited?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The current debate on the OSMF talk list is interesting. Term limits sound obvious, and we should all strive to lead for the shortest time necessary. I do believe it's important to get the basics of your organisation right. But it's also important to not spend all your time solving theoretical problems. If there is a clearly defined proposal with wide community support, I would support it.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The larger question that should be dealt with first is - what is leadership and leadership development in OSMF? Have we created pathways for leaders to grow? Have we considered mentorship and recruiting? To be honest, the term limit conversation is indicative of some larger questions. Why is it hard to be a leader in OSMF? What is the user experience on the mailing lists, other channels, diary comments, and working groups? We should be working on these items first before we consider term limits as a top priority. In summary, the root cause of candidates and terms may be more than just the length of time someone as a leader - a volunteer leader. Let's do research before we focus on terms. If we only have x amount of time, what is the biggger priority for OSMF?
https://communityroundtable.com/what-we-do/research/community-maturity-model/
http://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Projects/FLOSS+Foundations+Board+Selection
Ubuntu http://community.ubuntu.com/community-structure/governance/
OSS watch http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/governancemodels
--HeatherLeson (talk)
Since you do not seem to have a position on this question (yet) because in your opinion other questions need to be dealt with first maybe you can elaborate on your position on these other questions (not necessarily here). I see you listing a lot of topics you consider of interest and important here and in your manifesto but can hardly find any statement on your position on any of them. If your intention is to work on certain topics people want and need to know your positions on these topics.
--Imagico (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
My position is - we need to determine why term limits matter more than all the other items that the Board should prioritize. On a more personal note, last night I spent 2 hours answer most of your and your colleagues questions. Tonight I am back at it answering more. Truly,I appreciate that you have some priorities. I would be happy to hear from other members too.
--HeatherLeson (talk)

Important issues for OSM and OSMF

Rank

Imagine your available personal time and and energy were represented by 100 credit points and you are free to invest these points into the following list of "important" issues for OSM and the OSMF. How would you distribute your 100 credit points (i.e. your time and energy)? The sum of all assigned credit points must not exceed 100. If the sum of all points is less than 100, it means that you think that there are other important topics which are not mentioned by this list.

It does not matter how much time you will dedicate to your work as OSMF board member. 100 points are the equivalent of the time you will invest into the work of the board.

  • diversity of gender
  • diversity of location
  • diversity of age
  • diversity of race/ethnicity
  • diversity of sexual orientation
  • possibility for mappers to contribute to OSM even if they don't understand English
  • OSM data should be free from advertisements.
  • vector tiles on openstreetmap.org
  • high proportion of unpaid contributors
  • protection of our trademark
  • independence from money from the business sector (see definition of "business" above)
  • usability of OSM data without using additional datasets
  • protecting the share alike aspect of OSM licensing
  • replacing Google-based solutions used by the board by free (as in freedom) alternatives (or hosted by the OSMF or one of its local chapters)
  • changes in the OpenStreetMap project due to the commencement of GDPR
  • transforming OSMF into a charity and/or moving OSMF to another European country where it easier to become a charity and where the legal risks to be sued for copyright violation or accidents caused by our data are lower

--Nakaner (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is hard to answer, especially in this format. Maybe you could make a table to fill in? Anyway, my first priority would be everything related to community building in the very wide sense. So I guess at least 50 points would go to that. I've outlined some ideas about that in my position statement. I don't intend to fill up all my time with my own priorities, and I don't pretend to understand everything about OSM. So I'd say the other 50 points should go to priorities as they rise from the community.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The phrasing of this question is confusing in terms of math as I need to know what the priorities are of the community too to balance. There are some major items about community development missing from this list, so I added them below. The shape of a strategic board is to have people with diverse skills and expertise. My focus is Community engagement and governance. A note that GDPR research and data policies are part of my day job.
Code of conduct/Community Engagement for OSMF: 50%
  • diversity of gender
  • diversity of location
  • diversity of age
  • diversity of race/ethnicity
  • diversity of sexual orientation
  • possibility for mappers to contribute to OSM even if they don't understand English
I helped draft a Code of Conduct for HOT. This might help us grow. See - https://www.hotosm.org/updates/2017-10-30_code_of_conduct
Governance/Data use/AOB: 50%
  • OSM data should be free from advertisements.
  • vector tiles on openstreetmap.org
  • high proportion of unpaid contributors
  • protection of our trademark
  • independence from money from the business sector (see definition of "business" above)
  • usability of OSM data without using additional datasets
  • protecting the share alike aspect of OSM licensing
  • replacing Google-based solutions used by the board by free (as in freedom) alternatives (or hosted by the OSMF or one of its local chapters)
  • changes in the OpenStreetMap project due to the commencement of GDPR
  • transforming OSMF into a charity and/or moving OSMF to another European country where it easier to become a charity and where the legal risks to be sued for copyright violation or accidents caused by our data are lower
--HeatherLeson (talk)

Difficulties to reach the goals

Have you plans on how to address your most important issues mentioned above? Where do you expect difficulties?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Being on a board is hard work with priorities shifting inside and outside the community. The keys to Board Member strength are negotiation, trust, humanity, communications, and coordination. I've worked in some tough situations and have served on boards. Communications in OSM are sometimes not healthy in tone. This makes the decisions and discussions more complex.
--HeatherLeson (talk)

Usual board business

Transparency

Should board meetings be public as they have been for the last months? Should meeting minutes of all working groups should be public?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Board meetings vary in content and style. As I learn the content of the Board meetings, I can make a firm decision. In general, some items do need to be in camera - eg. staff issues, board member issues, and some financial matters. However, for the most part open is appropriate. Regarding the working groups, it seems there are no current standards on reporting back to the global community. We can work on this with the working group leads to find a balance.
--HeatherLeson (talk)

Attended a board meeting?

How many meetings of the OSMF board of directors did you attend in the last two years? If you don't remember the exact number, give an estimation instead.
--Nakaner (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I will attend today's meeting
--HeatherLeson (talk)

Available time

Being elected as a board member does not only mean to take part in the monthly Mumble sessions. It includes more. How much time per week are you willing to dedicate to your engagement in the board?
--Nakaner (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I currently invest between 4 and 8 hours a week in OSM organisational stuff. I could increase that a bit, but I would mostly try to lighten the load of some local stuff. I was already trying to start that process anyway.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
For the HOT board, I contributed about 5 - 10 hours a week. We should to be a strategic board at OSMF and find ways to collaborate with working groups and leaders of the large community. Given my work, I aim for 5 hours a week.
--HeatherLeson (talk)

Role of OSMF in community projects

Although most projects of the OSM community - for example tools like map editors or maps - are run and managed independently from the OSMF there are also a number of things that are currently run under the control and management of the OSMF, more specifically the OWG (Operations Working Group) - in particular of course the main database and related services but notably also the main map, the OSM website and this wiki.

  • What is your view of this situation and your vision how you see this develop in the future?
  • Should the OSMF get further involved with either managing or financing/otherwise supporting OSM related projects or should it reduce its involvement?
  • What do you think should be the criteria for the OSMF to get involved in either supporting, developing or running tools and services?
  • What do you think should be the level of oversight of the OSMF over projects that have a key role in OpenStreetMap like the most widely used map editors? Should this differ for project that run on the OSMF infrastructure like the main instance of the iD editor or the standard map style compared to other services that are run independently but still have an important role for the OSM community (like the Overpass API)?

--Imagico (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is a good thing that so much is managed independently. In the future, I would like to see more integration of tools into one platform, centered on osm.org, much like we did with the different basemaps. So that doesn't necessarily mean they should be managed by OSMF too. For existing tools, priority should be on essential tools where the current manager asks for OSMF support. For new tools, OSMF should support tools the community wants, but don't get developped. Among community organizers, there are some unmet needs since a long time - trying to get those built, if needed in exchange for money, would be one of my main personal priorities.
I don't think OSMF should try to have more oversight over externally run projects. I do see added value from a role as a facilitator or mediator between users and developers.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Joost covered this well. I would like to learn more about what the OWG thinks on this. --HeatherLeson (talk)

Opinions on large-scale editing

Imports and automated edits

  • Do you personally agree with the current rules on imports and automated edits, or would you like to see something changed about them?
  • Do you see this as a matter for the board? If not: Who, in your opinion, is the authority for defining those rules?
  • Do you have any related goals for your term?

--Tordanik 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Organized editing

A process trying to establish guidelines on organized editing is currently underway. What is your opinion on the topic? Also, what percentage of your own contributions to OSM (if any) are part of organized editing efforts?
--Tordanik 21:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Organized editing is likely to become more important over time, and with that comes a threat to our values. I'm glad that we are working on a policy, as this will also make it easier for organizers to do the right thing. To clarify, I see organized editing as an opportunity in the first place. But as anyone who has tried to organize mapping would have noticed, it is very (very!) hard to do it right. Just like with any other mapper, it is important to point out errors in a constructive way. And just like any mapper should, they should be willing to talk.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 08:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Open source and organized activities have a long history. We should draw on this experience. There is no reason that organized mapping or even corporate contributions should be deemed any less of a 'community contribution'. The process of drafting these guidelines are part of the reason I aim to be more involved in the governance of OSMF. Please see the following articles.
https://opensource.com/business/16/8/corporate-trends-open-source https://opensource.com/business/13/2/why-company-contribute-open-source http://uk.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-open-source-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
--HeatherLeson (talk)
Since you say "There is no reason that organized mapping or even corporate contributions should be deemed any less of a 'community contribution'" - does this mean you intend to scrub the current ongoing work to regulate organized mapping (which would obviously make a distinction between individual mappers and organized mapping in some form)?
--Imagico (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

OSM Licence - Share-alike

The OSM Licence (ODbL) has a share-alike clause for "derived data", i.e. if you combine OSM data with other data sources, you must release those other data sources. Are you in favour of keeping that requirement? Rorym (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I really like this concept. Though with the recent opening of much more data, the phrasing above isn't always correct anymore: in many cases it means the external dataset needs to make its license -less- open. If you have a completely open dataset and combine it with OSM, you now have to include the share-alike clause on the formerly entirely open dataset. For the time being, that actually makes sense: otherwise ignoring share-alike is an easy loophole. I hope and believe that as we grow, the need for share-alike is likely to be ever less needed. And the cost to the project and to society of keeping it will increase. Hence ODbL is not sacred to me, but I don't see us seriously contemplating license change within the next couple of years - and I think that's a good thing, for now.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Just for clarification: The idea that a second data set, for combining it with OSM, would be forced to change its own license to be less open is a misunderstanding (or just a inprecise phrasing on your side). The merger of the two data sets would obviously need to have a share-alike clause in the license but nothing forces the owners of the second data set not to continue distributing their data under a more permissive license. And the Collective Database Guideline is fairly liberal even with combining data sets without share-alike for the combination.
--Imagico (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
To make sure I understand correctly, and to clarify my point, here's some examples.
The case I had in mind is a road dataset. Imagine if you have a government dataset that is PD. Merge the geometries of OSM roads to add missing parts. This resultant dataset than has Share Alike. Say the government then keeps working on this merged dataset, slowly validating the OSM-sourced data. They just change some attributes or a node here and there. The result is still share-alike. That would mean they can't integrate OSM in this way into their workflow without triggering Share Alike. It is however not a problem if they just use the geometry of missing segments to find places they need to analyse.
Another example: governement has no data about cycle paths. They decide to crowdsource the data with OSM. They validate all the data in OSM. They then take a copy, which they can now claim to be authoritative data. They keep this copy up to date using OSM input data and their own validation. Their authoritative data will need to be Share Alike, which might be counter to government policy of completely open data.
In these examples, a thorough integration of OSM into gov working process is made impossibe. This is a brake on adaption of OSM in gov processes. I think the cost/advantage balance will change towards more in favour of dropping share alike over time. But as I said above, let's keep it that way for now.
--Joost schouppe (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Correct, the IMO somewhat misleading formulation in your initial statement was in many cases it means the external dataset needs to make its license -less- open - this is never the case though, share-alike only applies to data sets that contain data from OSM (in significant volume). This is the very intention of share-alike of course. If the fact that a thorough integration of OSM into gov working process is made impossible is due to the government policy or due to the OSM license depends on your viewpoint. Lets take further discussion of this - if necessary - to a different venue.
--Imagico (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The OSMFs mission and future direction

IMHO the myriad of detailed questions tends to obscure the important stuff.

The OSMF current mission is to support the wider OpenStreetMap project, not to govern it, set directions, tell mappers what to do and so on.

Do you believe the OSMF should continue as is, or would you work to change the direction? If the later, what role do you envision for the OSMF going forward?
--SimonPoole (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your question subject …

Question
-- Signature of who asks the question

Answer
-- Candidate signature