Hi, On 03.02.2013 20:42, Paweł Paprota wrote:
At the same time the percentage of (highly) active users is falling since at least 2009 and this number is now below 2%.
Seeing the number of highly active mappers rise would mean that we have a small number of mappers doing a lot of work; the number falling means that work is distributed among more people. I think that's good.
On the developer side of things, look at the git log and what's been going on in the last several months. How many Top Ten Tasks have been accomplished in 2012 from those that were planned? Now think why this number is so low.
I don't know exactly what "git log" you mean. OSM is a whole universe of software; a part of that is visible on https://github.com/openstreetmap/. The bit that is on https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website is but a tiny fragment of it. The number of Top Ten Tasks completed would only be suitable if you had something to compare it to ("in 2011 we managed to close 4 tasks but not a single one in 2012" or so).
In fact you are the *first* person who actually proclaims doom for OSM because not enough of these tasks have been completed.
I think one must be thankful that you joined after the license change was through else you'd have spent three years telling us that we're doomed because it takes so long ;)
I don't know much about CWG but I trust Richard when he says they are understaffed/"under-resourced" and proper communication and PR is probably one of the most important things right now that the project should be doing.
Well, yes, communication is important; CWG should have more people and we've just lost someone who thought up great things like switch2osm.org - but you make it sound like the house is on fire and if things don't change within half a year everything will be lost and I can assure you that OSM won't fade into oblivion just because we put out less press releases than we could.
That's your opinion, I have a different one and know at least a couple of people who think alike. Certainly if nothing is done in 6-8 months then OSM is not going to vanish.
That's relieving to hear ;)
Strategic thinking is long-term thinking, and in our case requires to get a lot of pepole on board in a suitable process, including those who think that we shouldn't have a strategy (we can't just kick them out and say "ok then we'll have a strategy without you" - we have to convince them that having a strategy is good). This not only is a lot of work but also requires the political skills that Mike Migurski mentioned. I'm confident that all these things are going to happen in due course, but it is very unlikely that "in due course" means "in 6-8 months".
Seriously? 6-8 months is not enough time to put together such initiative? What do you plan on doing all this time?
The OSMF board consists of six people who have a day job, a private life, who are mappers or coders or doing other OSM related things in their spare time - and on top of that they do OSMF board work. This board work comprises taking part in meetings, handling inquiries by third parties, handling legal issues like the one that spawned this thread, talking to lawyers, doing finances, planning conferences, handling OSMF membership, and a lot more. Some of these tasks are taken on by individual board members and therefore don't concern the whole board a lot, but even then there's reporting and discussion.
One of the things we're working on (see the November 03 board minutes plus some of the later ones) is to install a "Management Team" that would take some of the workload off the shoulders of the board, freeing up some space for more "strategic" or at least more forward-looking tasks; among them are work on the Articles of Association (mentioned in Dec 18 minutes) and sorting out "intellectual property" issues (trademark registration mentioned in Jan 29 minutes) with the aim of coming up with guidelines on the use of our name.
There are only so many hours in a day and only so many hours that OSMF board members are able to spend on board work. Especially when "strategic" stuff is concerned, board members wouldn't only have to discuss things among themselves, they would also have to talk to other stakeholders in OSM, get them on board, set up a process and all that.
Of course I could sit down on my own and write up a "the future of OSMF" document in an evening, and if I do it well it might be nice starting point for a discussion, but not more.
These issues take time and if you don't believe me, you're free to stand for election at the next SOTM conference, and then you can be the person to explain to the eager young folk on the mailing list why things move so slowly ;)
Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
