Working Group Minutes/MWG 2017-12-07
- Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
- Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
- Mohamat Lamine (Lamine_Ndiaye)
- Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
- Joost Schouppe (joost_schouppe)
- E-Mail rejected as spam on email@example.com
- Member self service area
- Membership fee waiver program
The last minuets are unanimously accepted.
Joost Schouppe is accepted as a new member of the MWG.
Fee waiver program
Joost did a nice summary of the discussions on the mailing list. The proposal is submitted to the board.
Some payments missing
There were a few requests where the payment with paypal was successful, but the payment was not recorded with civicrm. We do not know why this happens, although it happens rarely fortunately. We will accept the receipt of paypal as proof of payment. Further it is possible to check with the treasurer if the payment is available in paypal where the MWG does not have access. This can be done occasionally.
Request for an opt in published member list
Michael will create a proposal to optionally show OSMF membership on the osm.org user page.
20:16 < datendelphin> First point on the agenda would be accepting the minutes of the last meeting 20:16 < datendelphin> found here https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2017-09-22 20:17 * Steve__ approves minutes 20:17 < jonwit> i approve of old minutes 20:17 < joost_schouppe> I have no idea how irc works, but I approve too :) 20:18 < Lamine_Ndiaye> Hello everyone 20:18 < datendelphin> yes that is mainly how it works :) As you see in the old minutes, we copy paste just the chat log and then produce a short summary 20:19 < datendelphin> Hi Lamine_Ndiaye 20:20 < datendelphin> Then I would like to propose joost_schouppe as a new member of the MWG 20:21 < datendelphin> He has already done very welcome work on the fee waiver program 20:21 < Lamine_Ndiaye> Welcome tout joost_schouppe 20:21 < joost_schouppe> Thanks! 20:21 < jonwit> Welcome to the MWG 20:22 < Steve__> happy welcome! 20:23 < datendelphin> Awesome. SO I will try to get in touch with pnorman to add you to the mwg mail distribution, and will send you the, um, paperwork that you can have access to member re cords. 20:23 < jonwit> As I recall in order to get access to the membership rolls and program to asset with emails you must sign a non-disclosure agreement joost_schouppe 20:25 < joost_schouppe> Okay, I'll sign whatever needed. But not urgent for me 20:26 -!- Lamine_Ndiaye [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 20:26 < joost_schouppe> Got the mail, thanks 20:26 < datendelphin> good, so let's go forward to the fee waiver program 20:27 < Steve__> waive ALL the fees! 20:27 < datendelphin> Thanks joost_schouppe for the nice summary. 20:29 < datendelphin> So should we just include the 10% clause or forward it as it is for approval to the board? 20:29 < Steve__> when I read the 10% thing it struck me as really high. How many members are in OSMF right now (roughtly) ? 20:29 < Steve__> that's a first impression without really thinking about it. 20:30 < jonwit> I like the 10% rule however I think that clause is unneeded since we don't know how many people will sign up for it 20:30 < joost_schouppe> It's very high, so it doesn't matter much if we add it, and it helps with some concerns 20:30 < Steve__> "The board and/or MWG reserves the right to limit participation to a practical limit" ? 20:31 < Steve__> I'm fine not to encourage a stampede 20:31 < jonwit> I prefer that since each fee waived member needs to be voted on in some way by the board 20:31 < datendelphin> Steve__: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership/Statistics 20:32 < Steve__> I don't think we expect a stampede, but in any case, if we get people in underserved areas (which are probably isolated not just due to banking issues), that's a good thing whether they pay or not. 20:32 -!- Steve__ is now known as SJFriedl 20:32 < SJFriedl> got my name back 20:33 < joost_schouppe> I didn't see anything about individual board approval? 20:34 < SJFriedl> I'd like to see a "No Pokemon Go players" clause :-) 20:35 < SJFriedl> I absolutely do not believe we should get the board involved in individual approvals. 20:35 < SJFriedl> that's what working groups are for. 20:35 < datendelphin> I think there will be very few, because we currently will only allow people who are unable to pay by paypal 20:36 < datendelphin> that is essentially only a handful of nations world wide 20:36 < SJFriedl> I thought there was another circumstance where paypal was available, but it required a bank account that was expensive or something? 20:36 < datendelphin> So I also think that no limit is necessary 20:36 < jonwit> banking fees are more expensive than the membership fee i believe 20:36 < SJFriedl> that's it. 20:38 < joost_schouppe> Ok, so should we define more specifically what is lack of practical means? I thought it just said "no PayPal available" 20:38 < datendelphin> Yes, jonwit and SJFriedl you are both right. But that is not part of the current proposal 20:38 < joost_schouppe> Nevermind my question then, back to the proposal 20:39 < jonwit> the text states: the regular membership fee, may be waived if paying the fee would constitute an unreasonable burden to the member, either because of financial hardship or because of the lack of a suitable money transfer facility. 20:39 < datendelphin> solving those two problems is a lot harder, thats why we wanted to start with something simple 20:39 < SJFriedl> fair enough. Paypal is a fair proxy for a first effort. 20:41 < SJFriedl> I'm looking for the actual current working text...? 20:41 < joost_schouppe> Jonwit, that's not what I see in the thing discussed on OSMF talk 20:41 < datendelphin> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-September/004217.html 20:41 < jonwit> i copied it from the annual meeting text http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Annual_General_Meetings/14 20:42 < datendelphin> jonwit: that is our basis, not our implementation 20:42 < datendelphin> the implementation is the mail I posted the link to above 20:42 < SJFriedl> so we were going to drop #3, "something of value" 20:42 < jonwit> sorry for the confusion 20:43 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: no, the active contributor requirement is based on that requirement 20:44 < SJFriedl> Ohhh. Sorry, I'm slow ti keep up today. 20:44 < datendelphin> no problem :) 20:44 < datendelphin> So who thinks we should stick to the text proposed on the osmf talk list, and who thinks we need to further refine it? 20:44 < datendelphin> I vot for the proposed text 20:45 < datendelphin> I vote for the proposed text 20:45 < SJFriedl> DDuhy, I was looiking at the annual meeting thing. 20:45 < SJFriedl> This looks great. I approve 20:46 < jonwit> being the devils advocate how would we approach an individual who does not add changes to the map but still contributes in their own way (i.e. organizing meetings) 20:46 < SJFriedl> as a later step. 20:46 < SJFriedl> I think the feeling was that being objective has its own value. 20:46 < SJFriedl> otherwise then it's "is that enough?" 20:46 < datendelphin> we tell him to edit the map. The requirement is really small after all 20:46 < SJFriedl> (amongst us) 20:47 < SJFriedl> they should be going that anyway, no? 20:47 < joost_schouppe> Agree, this is simple, easy and honest 20:47 < jonwit> i approve of the proposed text. 20:47 < SJFriedl> unless they're running for OSM board ;-) 20:48 < joost_schouppe> I would like to add the 10% limit, but I also accept the proposal of we don't add it 20:49 < datendelphin> I would leave it for now. 20:49 < joost_schouppe> Not because I think it's necessary, just to give people peace of mind 20:49 < SJFriedl> I think we can always propose an alteration if it comes to that. 20:50 < jonwit> i dont think we are going to be overrun with requests from individuals in developing countries without paypal, and even if we do it will offset us americans and europeans 20:50 < datendelphin> Yes. So may we task joost_schouppe to approach the board with our proposal? 20:51 < joost_schouppe> Ok, I approve of the text 20:51 < datendelphin> In the end, the board could also ask for such a clause to be added 20:51 < joost_schouppe> And I'll pass it on to the board :) 20:52 < SJFriedl> I agree with jonwit: genuine applications are welcome whether they pay or not. 20:54 < datendelphin> Oh and joost_schouppe if you further persue the topic of the waiver, Lamine_Ndiaye can tell you of his situation in Senegal. I found that very interesting (can be read in the past minutes) 20:54 < datendelphin> So Next topic is the membership drive? 20:55 < SJFriedl> Waiving all the fees might help with that too :-) 20:55 < joost_schouppe> (yes, I will absolutely do that. This is just a first step, but glad we're finally taking it!) 20:57 < datendelphin> You have probably seen the small statistic I posted about the drive. 20:57 < jonwit> i copied the statistic from the osmf mail: 5 Sweden (2%) 13 United Kingdom (5%) 14 India (5%) 24 Germany (9%) 146 United States (56%) This is from a total of 263 members who joined in October or November. By continent: Africa 4 (2%) Asia 29 (11%) Europe 65 (25%) North America 150 (57%) Oceania 6 (2%) South America 9 (3%) 20:58 < datendelphin> Unfortunately, the MWG was only little involved in the drive. I think it is a good idea, but I would apreciate it if it was done from within the MWG next time. 20:58 < SJFriedl> how would we do it differently? 20:58 < SJFriedl> isn't this as much about communications as anything else? 20:59 < SJFriedl> not objecting, just asking 20:59 < jonwit> great job compiling the stats! I really dont understand how we could contribute with the membership drive thou. 21:00 < datendelphin> For example with a date a bit more spaced out before the annual meeting :) 21:04 < datendelphin> ok, no further action required 21:05 < datendelphin> Those who already were on the mwg list saw it, we had a few payments which mysteriously went missing 21:06 < SJFriedl> have you checked under the cusions on your couch? 21:06 < datendelphin> We need to inquire with the treasurer in such cases, because we have no access to paypal 21:06 < datendelphin> I even check below the couch. But no luck 21:08 < datendelphin> Is it ok if we accept the receipt (pdf sent by member)? 21:09 < SJFriedl> why not accept provisionally so they can be involved while we sort it out? 21:09 < SJFriedl> until and unless that we find out we've been gamed, we should assume this is an administrative thing that the member is not responsible for. 21:10 < datendelphin> That's what I did. I renewed them manually and just afterwards sent the receipt to our treasurer for verification 21:10 < SJFriedl> great. 21:11 < datendelphin> But I have no idea how that comes and what we could do against it 21:11 < joost_schouppe> (Sorry, I have to take a drive now. Will have a look here again in about 45 min) 21:12 < datendelphin> The only lead I have is that they paid with a paypal account in a differen email than what they used to register with osmf 21:12 < datendelphin> ok, thanks joost_schouppe 21:12 < datendelphin> hopefully we will be done by then 21:12 < jonwit> thanks for joining, welcome to the team 21:12 < datendelphin> have a safe trip 21:13 < datendelphin> ok then in absence of good ideas, lets move on to the last topic 21:13 < SJFriedl> see ya! 21:14 < datendelphin> One member requested that he is shown on a public list of OSMF members. I think we could do this, though I don't know if there would be more members interested in that 21:15 < SJFriedl> Associate members do not have to reveal their address, right? 21:15 < datendelphin> Yes 21:16 < datendelphin> But we are talking about an optional, but public by default list 21:17 < datendelphin> so now you can request a membership list if you are a member, or the list of normal members if *company act reasons* 21:17 < jonwit> so there was a request that the membership roster be published. didn't the http://hdyc.neis-one.org website that publishes user stats just hide that information due to privacy reasons 21:17 < SJFriedl> are we talking about usernames, usernames + real names, user + real + country, address, what? 21:17 < SJFriedl> this is a transparency thing, right? 21:18 < datendelphin> No he requested that his OWN name be puplished as a certified member 21:18 < SJFriedl> Oh. To prove professional association. 21:18 < datendelphin> not all members, but his own name 21:18 < datendelphin> yes to have a place to show people: look, I'm a member of OSMF 21:19 < SJFriedl> why not have a checkbox on membersihp, [X] make my membership public on <list> 21:19 < SJFriedl> default to off for everybody (so no surprises), but people can opt in. 21:19 < SJFriedl> or default = opt in for new members, but opt out default for prior? 21:20 < datendelphin> I just have no idea how many would like to be on such a list. 21:20 < datendelphin> I would say definitely opt-in 21:20 < SJFriedl> I would be proud to be listed. 21:20 < datendelphin> with a big warning 21:21 < jonwit> I would have no problem with being listed however most people here can be spooked by having their name up on the internet 21:21 < datendelphin> good :) personally, I'm already on too many lists, would not want that. 21:21 < datendelphin> yes jonwit I think so too. 21:23 < datendelphin> So should we persue that? And if yes who would volunteer to see it through? 21:23 < jonwit> I think a commemorative membership card that can be printed out would be a better alternative and would ruffle less feathers 21:24 < SJFriedl> Is the prompting for this literally one person's request? 21:26 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: yes. Are you not on the mwg list? 21:26 < SJFriedl> I am but have been very distracted lately with some health issues. 21:27 < jonwit> ive been bombarded with mailing list emails as well from the election and what not 21:27 < datendelphin> well filter the osmf-talk and look at the mwg mails :) 21:28 < datendelphin> I'm searching for the mail right now to point you to it 21:29 < datendelphin> The mail was on Nov. 2nd. I will not write the name because this is irc 21:29 < datendelphin> but I can forward it if you would like 21:31 < datendelphin> found? or should I forward? 21:31 < SJFriedl> I have 10k messages in my mailbox and filtering is a challenge for me. 21:32 < jonwit> i did not find it but no need to forward i believe you 21:32 < SJFriedl> I believe you too :-) 21:33 < datendelphin> ok, so what should we do? 21:33 < jonwit> So our options are to 1. ignore the request as it is only one person, 2, submit a proposal to the board to list all members, or 3. propose an alternative? 21:34 < datendelphin> 2) would be a proposal for an opt-in public list of members 21:34 < datendelphin> yes 21:34 < SJFriedl> I don't like the idea of a list just for this idea. If somebody proposes an idea and we're all: why exactly does somebody want this? you might not have a killer idea. 21:35 < SJFriedl> what if this were optionally shown in your OSM profile? 21:35 < SJFriedl> or is there not that kind of linkage? 21:35 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: could be possible, we ask for the osm name 21:35 < jonwit> i dont believe you osm account is tied to your osmf membership in any way 21:35 < datendelphin> but that would need some serious implementation 21:35 < SJFriedl> ok, then that's too much work as wll. 21:36 < jonwit> your osmf account is only tied to your email address 21:36 < SJFriedl> so I guess we don't know: does he need one-time verification for some work certification thing, or does he want to ongoingly point to "Look at me! I'm OSMF"? 21:36 < datendelphin> actually, I would prefer that one. But we would need help to implement it 21:37 < datendelphin> ok, you know what? I will pick it up. I will make a proposal to optionally show OSMF membership on the osm.org user page. 21:38 < jonwit> I will agree to a opt-in public list of members not an opt-out. 21:40 < datendelphin> ok, any other business? 21:41 < jonwit> I dont have any 21:42 < datendelphin> ok, thank you all