Local Chapters Working Group/Meeting 2011-04-06

Attendance

IRC Name Present Apologies
karida Daniel Kastl y
seav Eugene Alvin Villar y
toffehoff Henk Hoff y
RigacciOrg Niccolo Rigacci y

Minutes (Draft)

  • ....

IRC Log

[00:00:33] <toffehoff> It's close to 3pm UTC. 
[00:00:58] <toffehoff> Waiting to see whether some more people show up. 
[00:01:38] <karida> yes, let's see 
[00:07:31] -!- RigacciOrg [RigacciOrg!~niccolo@static-94-33-2-62.clienti.tiscali.it] has joined #osm_chapters 
[00:08:40] <toffehoff> Let's wait another 2 minutes to see who else joins. 
[00:12:05] <toffehoff> Looks like we're with the three of us. 
[00:12:42] <karida> not really large audience 
[00:13:03] <toffehoff> What shall we do? 
[00:13:15] <toffehoff> We can talk a bit about how we see membership. 
[00:13:22] <karida> don't you think it makes more sense to discuss the topics on the mailing list then? 
[00:14:09] <toffehoff> It may, but it would work better when discussing a proposal. 
[00:14:45] <karida> who actually represents the interests of OSMF? I don't think it's only you. 
[00:15:03] <toffehoff> I wish :-) 
[00:15:12] <karida> it would make things easier ;-) 
[00:15:28] <toffehoff> but no. When we have a proposal, I have to run it through a board meeting. 
[00:15:40] -!- seav [seav!~quassel@112.203.54.130] has joined #osm_chapters 
[00:16:08] <toffehoff> I do not know how the board would like to handle this. 
[00:16:34] <karida> was there ever a discussion about local OSMF chapters? 
[00:17:18] <toffehoff> within the board: yes. Within the community: yes. 
[00:17:37] <toffehoff> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Local_chapter 
[00:18:14] <toffehoff> One of the major discussions was about membership 
[00:19:41] <toffehoff> chapters having a separate membership scheme or members of chapters being also members of the foundation. 
[00:20:04] <toffehoff> ... or members of the foundation also being members of their chapter. 
[00:20:26] <toffehoff> I think there are two options: 
[00:20:37] <toffehoff> - Both run a separate scheme. 
[00:21:24] <toffehoff> - foundation is running the membership. If someone live in the region of a chapter, the member will also be member of the chapter. 
[00:21:53] <karida> Speaking as a local chapter we probably all read the draft and tried to fulfil the conditions 
[00:22:06] <toffehoff> the latter also having things like chapters getting (part of) the membership fee 
[00:22:36] <toffehoff> How did you interpreted these then? 
[00:22:36] <karida> I think it's important to keep things as simple as possible 
[00:22:58] <toffehoff> That's why there are I think to options. 
[00:23:06] <karida> > Rules for Local Chapters 
[00:23:06] <toffehoff> to = two 
[00:23:19] <karida> that's what we thought is the important part 
[00:24:22] <toffehoff> You are on the right track with that. :-) 
[00:24:59] <karida> I think no local chapter is will disallow any interested person to become a member of the local chapter 
[00:25:19] <seav> didn't somebody mention before that making local chapter members automatic members of OSMF is possibly not legal? 
[00:25:45] <toffehoff> seav Yes: but you could also see it the other way round. 
[00:25:56] <karida> seav: I think those automatic memberships just make things complicated 
[00:25:59] <toffehoff> Members of the Foundation automatic being members of a foundation. 
[00:26:12] <toffehoff> that would be a simpeler solution. 
[00:26:18] <karida> no local chapter will refuse someone to become a member, I think 
[00:27:14] <toffehoff> Like the foundation also would not likely refuse someone..... 
[00:27:26] <toffehoff> although there are situations ..... :-) 
[00:27:34] <toffehoff> The difference would be: 
[00:27:48] <seav> hmmm, but would the OSMF member refuse to join the local chapter? 
[00:27:50] <toffehoff> Does the chapter need to run their own membership scheme. 
[00:28:06] <toffehoff> or would the Foundation take care of this. 
[00:28:13] <karida> Japanese chapter already does for example 
[00:28:30] <toffehoff> seav: why? 
[00:28:50] <seav> maybe he doesn't like the people in the local chapter? 
[00:29:25] <toffehoff> Let him/her become member and vote the current people in the chapter out :-) 
[00:29:44] <karida> other question: I'm German living 70% in Japan and 30% in Germany. Where do I belong to? ;-) 
[00:29:44] <seav> maybe he prefers joining minimal orgs, and would rather be a member of OSMF instead of OSMF+localchapter given the choice? 
[00:30:45] <seav> maybe his budget can only cover the OSMF membership fee? 
[00:30:47] <toffehoff> It only works when it is kept simple. 
[00:31:16] <seav> simple: loosely affiliated orgs 
[00:31:25] <karida> +1 
[00:31:49] <seav> there's no need to have automatic memberships in either direction 
[00:32:02] <seav> individual chooses which orgs to join for himself 
[00:32:07] <toffehoff> There could be a practical reason. 
[00:32:54] <toffehoff> Again: Either, every chapter needs to run it's own membership scheme (registering etc), or.... 
[00:33:06] <karida> OSMF could give discounts for members of local chapters to increase double memberships ;-) 
[00:33:26] <karida> Local chapters could take applications for OSMF 
[00:33:33] <toffehoff> the membership scheme is run by the foundation and chapters will get lists of members in their region. 
[00:33:58] <toffehoff> karida: that would make things less simple. 
[00:34:32] <toffehoff> Advantage for the chapters: they do not have the hassle of keeping record of members..... 
[00:34:49] <seav> i personally prefer each chapter running their own membership schemes 
[00:35:08] <seav> the less links between orgs the simpler 
[00:35:16] <toffehoff> And .... for funding purposes: the foundation could fund chapters based on the amount of members they have. 
[00:35:43] <karida> do you want to fund chapters or the OSM community? 
[00:35:57] <seav> funding chapters based on size? not a good idea 
[00:36:27] <toffehoff> size should be one factor I guess.... 
[00:36:59] <karida> size of the community maybe ... but you could also argue: as smaller as more funcding 
[00:37:06] <karida> funding 
[00:37:07] <toffehoff> Hey, the amount of membership fee a chapter gets is also related to the amoutn of members? 
[00:37:07] <seav> well, 1GBP goes a longer way in the philippines than it does in japan 
[00:38:02] <toffehoff> seav: absolutely 
[00:38:22] <seav> maybe a grants system is better for funding 
[00:38:26] <karida> Well, I don't think funding is an important point for OSMF Japan to become a local chapter 
[00:38:46] <seav> orgs/individuals/etc. apply for grants from OSMF 
[00:39:09] <seav> at least you're sure that grant funding goes to something concrete 
[00:39:30] <toffehoff> OK. so it sounds like separate organisations with separate membership schemes. 
[00:39:49] <karida> yes, that's more simple, I think 
[00:40:08] <seav> grants are a better way of spending funds than trying to fund chapters based on arbitrary criteria 
[00:40:14] <toffehoff> the term "simple" is arguable ;-) 
[00:40:39] <seav> at least with grants, people in countries without chapters can apply to have local OSM projects funded 
[00:41:00] <toffehoff> seav: when the foundation would run the membership scheme, there needs to be some money flow going from the Foundation to the chapter, right? 
[00:41:15] <toffehoff> Besides grants for special projects etc. 
[00:41:30] <seav> for that membership scheme, yes 
[00:42:01] <toffehoff> That would mean: the chapter would not collect membership fee from it's members, but the foundation. And they would send some back to the chapter. 
[00:42:33] <karida> that's what I understand as "not simple" ;-) 
[00:42:41] <toffehoff> It would save the chapter the hassle of running the scheme and keeping record who is paid up or not. 
[00:42:59] <seav> for that membership scheme, yes that's how i would expect it to be 
[00:43:44] <toffehoff> So, if you all would like to take up that hassle. It's fine with me ;-) 
[00:43:50] <seav> BTW, there was talk years ago about PPP prorated OSMF membership fees 
[00:43:50] <karida> I think that the Japanese chapter can charge much higher membership fees than others for example. But also the running costs may be higher 
[00:44:05] <toffehoff> seav: correct... 
[00:44:21] <seav> that would complicate accounting purposes 
[00:44:49] <toffehoff> But again: sounds like there is still a favor of having things separate. 
[00:44:57] <seav> yep 
[00:45:08] <toffehoff> OK. 
[00:45:11] <seav> i see less hassle in keeping things separate 
[00:45:24] <toffehoff> then question 2: 
[00:46:01] <toffehoff> Should members of local chapters or the chapter itself have voting rights within the Foundation? 
[00:46:13] <toffehoff> Let's say we vote on licenses :-) 
[00:46:50] <seav> centralized membership: of course 
[00:46:56] <seav> separate membership: maybe not 
[00:47:26] <seav> if you're not an OSMF member you have no say on internal OSMF matters 
[00:47:32] <toffehoff> With centralized membership this would not have been a question ;-) 
[00:47:49] <karida> I read the part about "advisory board" on the wiki. What about something in the middle? Select some local chapter representative with voting rights? But as seav says, just become an OSMF member otherwise 
[00:47:52] <toffehoff> but you are a member of OpenStreetMap 
[00:48:11] <toffehoff> Do members see that difference? 
[00:48:13] <seav> well, we could look at the scottish question 
[00:48:39] <seav> scotland MOPs have a say on England affairs? 
[00:48:58] <toffehoff> With England you mean UK? 
[00:49:03] <seav> not UK 
[00:49:06] <seav> England 
[00:49:20] <toffehoff> that would not be a good example. 
[00:49:36] <toffehoff> Scotland and England are seperate parts of the UK 
[00:49:36] <seav> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lothian_question 
[00:51:07] <seav> yes they are separate, but scottish MPs, being members of the UK parliament, have a say on matters that is completely within England 
[00:51:21] <toffehoff> But.... 
[00:51:31] <seav> yet English MOPs don't have the same say on local Scottish matters due to the devolution to the Scottish parliament 
[00:51:50] <toffehoff> Members of a chapter do have interest in eg the license of the dataset. 
[00:51:55] <seav> i see something similar if we let local chapters have a say on OSMF things 
[00:52:05] <seav> license, yes 
[00:52:13] <seav> how about changing the articles of association? 
[00:52:22] <seav> or increasing membership fees of OSMF? 
[00:52:35] <seav> or other matters that are solely internally OSMF? 
[00:53:03] <toffehoff> The AoA could effect the chapters.... 
[00:53:54] <toffehoff> If the Foundation would change their AoA, the chapters may also need to have to change their AoA to be compliant with the goals of the Foundation... 
[00:54:06] <seav> anyway, if we let chapter members have a say in OSMF matters, why not regular community members? 
[00:54:15] <karida> Or they retire from being a local chapter if they don't agree 
[00:54:30] <toffehoff> It's not like Australia would have something to say about New Zealand.... 
[00:56:20] <toffehoff> Point is: can you explain to a member of OpenStreetMap Thailand that he/she has nothing to say about a fundamental thing within the project? 
[00:56:39] <seav> let's say OSMF wanted to partner with Ordnance Survey on a project, do local chapters outside the UK even need to have a say in that?
[00:56:54] <toffehoff> "I'm member of OpenStreetMap, I didn't know I needed to be a seperate member of the Foundation". 
[00:57:56] <karida> The Foundation was established to: 
[00:57:58] <karida> To be a custodian for the servers and services necessary to host the OpenStreetMap project. Specifically the foundation is the custodian of the servers located at UCL and the www.openstreetmap.org domain name. 
[00:58:00] <karida> To afford some degree of protection from copyright and liability suits. 
[00:58:02] <karida> To provides a vehicle for fundraising to support the project. 
[00:58:05] <karida> OSMF is not OSM 
[00:58:14] <karida> the community is OSM< I thinlk 
[00:58:37] <seav> i like the general idea of chapters having some say in how OSMF is run, but if you're going to let chapters have a say, why not the community at large? 
[00:58:50] <toffehoff> Let's say the Foundation decides on a bit more restrictive access to the database to guard themselves against vandalism.... 
[00:59:09] <seav> you will disenfranchise OSM community members in regions that don't have chapters 
[00:59:15] <toffehoff> Currently we can say: you need to become member of the Foundation (read: OpenStreetMap) 
[00:59:37] <toffehoff> If we have local chapters and a foundation. That will be confusing to members. 
[00:59:42] <karida> As I said OSM is the community, not the foundation, so I don't see this as a problem 
[01:00:26] <toffehoff> OK. So you both feel that Local Chapters should no influence in matters of the Foundation. 
[01:00:45] <toffehoff> at all. 
[01:01:00] <karida> Not necessarly ... if members of local chapters want to have an influence, they can join the foundation 
[01:01:07] <seav> if they want influence, then people gotta join OSMF 
[01:01:24] <toffehoff> Right, but the Local chapter itself or it's members can not. 
[01:01:29] <seav> i don't like the idea that chapters have a say and then regular community members dont 
[01:01:52] <karida> the members can, the local foundation cannot 
[01:02:14] <toffehoff> One of the reasons for the foundation for local chapters, is trying to give the community at large a voice. 
[01:02:44] <seav> here's a suggestion, have board seats specifically earmarked for chapters and board seats for community at large 
[01:03:04] <seav> the rest of the board seats are to be elected among OSMF members 
[01:03:10] <karida> Yes, some chapters representative as I said before 
[01:03:46] <seav> this will need admendments to the AoA so i'm not sure if this is feasible 
[01:04:04] <toffehoff> Currently the AoA is being reviewed. 
[01:04:22] <karida> if it's going to be complicated then forget about the idea ;-) 
[01:04:53] <toffehoff> Well OK. Let's put this out on the mailinglist and see what the reactions will be. 
[01:05:00] <toffehoff> It's a bit past the hour. 
[01:05:16] <toffehoff> In conclusion: 
[01:05:21] <seav> anyway, my summary point is: OSMF wants chapters to have a say? then let the community at large have a say too 
[01:05:42] <toffehoff> - Separate organisations with separate membership schemes 
[01:05:55] <toffehoff> seav: who is the community at large? 
[01:06:02] <toffehoff> the people on the mailinglist 
[01:06:08] <toffehoff> the people on IRC 
[01:06:11] <toffehoff> ?? 
[01:06:16] <toffehoff> Who are they? 
[01:06:18] <seav> that's a bit hard to define 
[01:06:20] <toffehoff> Where do they live? 
[01:06:27] <seav> but generally, people who contribute and use OSM data 
[01:07:33] <toffehoff> When these are merely people in Europe .... 
[01:08:00] <toffehoff> (I dunno btw, so don't quote me on this ;-) ) 
[01:08:12] <karida> already logged ;-) 
[01:08:37] <toffehoff> Luckily my comment as well :-) 
[01:08:50] <toffehoff> Again: 
[01:08:55] <toffehoff> - Separate membership 
[01:09:04] <toffehoff> - No voting right. 
[01:09:19] <seav> the no voting right can be debated still 
[01:09:24] <toffehoff> Correct? 
[01:09:32] <karida> - simple 
[01:09:41] <toffehoff> To put out on the mailinglist for debate. 
[01:09:49] <seav> yes 
[01:09:54] <karida> Yes, let's ask for more opinions 
[01:10:19] <toffehoff> OK. Anyone of you willing to kick this off on the local-chapters mailinglist? 
[01:10:46] <seav> hmmm 
[01:10:49] <seav> :p 
[01:10:55] <toffehoff> with maybe a announcement on talk about this discussion... 
[01:11:49] <toffehoff> It's suddenly very quiet.... 
[01:12:18] <toffehoff> Let me try and see if I can send something around later today or tomorrow. 
[01:12:19] <karida> (silence) ... no, I don't want to have something misunderstood and write the wrong way 
[01:13:03] <toffehoff> Next one (meeting that is)? 
[01:13:16] <toffehoff> This day/time alright? 
[01:13:21] <karida> alright 
[01:13:45] <toffehoff> Shall we take two weeks for discussion on the mailinglist? 
[01:14:02] <seav> two weeks is OK 
[01:14:10] <toffehoff> ... and have our next meeting on thursday 19th? 
[01:14:16] <karida> Will the board discuss it internal as well? 
[01:14:17] <seav> OK 
[01:14:27] <karida> for me 19th is fine 
[01:14:31] <karida> ... so far 
[01:14:32] <seav> i'll make the email about the separate membership discussion 
[01:14:40] <toffehoff> I will update them. 
[01:14:51] <toffehoff> thanks seav. 
[01:14:57] <karida> and I will start the debate ;-) 
[01:15:14] <toffehoff> great teamwork guys! 
[01:15:15] <seav> the voting rights question is a bit thornier so somebody else should do it 
[01:15:16] <seav> :) 
[01:15:44] <karida> seav: maybe just add it as an open question and let the community answer 
[01:15:49] <toffehoff> We will get to that during the membership discussion no doubt. 
[01:16:02] <seav> wait, so next meeting is thursday but same time? 
[01:16:18] <toffehoff> Yes.... unless ..... 
[01:16:27] <toffehoff> sorry tuesday. 
[01:16:32] <seav> wait, the 19th is tuesday, not thursday 
[01:16:48] <toffehoff> sorry my mistake. 
[01:16:51] <seav> hehe 
[01:16:52] <toffehoff> I meant tuesday. 
[01:17:16] <karida> Log is here: http://openstreetmap.jp/irclog/%23osm_chapters/2011-04-06.html 
[01:17:23] <toffehoff> Awesome. 
[01:17:33] <karida> Timezone is Japan ;-) 
[01:17:37] <toffehoff> Great discussion today. Thanks! 
[01:18:09] <karida> thanks! 
[01:18:14] <seav> thanks 
[01:18:38] <toffehoff> Talk to you all on the mailinglist and in two weeks! 
[01:18:42] <toffehoff> Have a good one!