Exactly, thanks Kathleen. The OSMF has decided to not do anything this year; it hasn’t even met face to face like we did every other year to thrash through issues and plan things. I’m not entirely sure if this is good or bad. My gut feeling is that pushing everything possible down to working groups etc is a mistake, but maybe I’m wrong.
What I see is what the more functional OSMF US is able to achieve with fewer resources. Those guys are inspirational and should be a model for us. I get to see it a little more up close since I work with Martijn than perhaps most people do; they manage to organize regular meetings and build things while the OSMF board decides which open source telephony solution is ideal. Steve PS I’m not lumping in sysadmin or development with the OSMF here, they’ve always run their own show or been ad-hoc, and it appears work with the occasional massive outside investment (e.g. iD) On Apr 5, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Kathleen Danielson <kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, "Matt Amos" <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > > > SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a > > > theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM > > > to approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised. > > > > it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard > > comments that OSM "had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap > > of money from other peoples' effort", and there was recurring > > criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's > > saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with > > the same sorts of "evil board" conspiracy theories now. > > Matt, > > Steve was merely expressing his doubt that the conference would come > together. He cast no aspersions on the Board that I could see and just > described the landscape of conferences as he sees it. Suggesting that this is > somehow a "conspiracy theory" is a stretch, and seems like you're just > looking for an excuse to dump on Steve. > > Feel free to respectfully disagree with Steve, me, or anyone on these > threads, but calling someone "hypocritical" is unkind and unproductive. > > Everyone-- please keep all comments on these mailing lists respectful of all > of your fellow community members. They are one of our main communication > channels and if they aren't a safe space for collaboration and discussion > then we're depriving ourselves of our greatest asset: each other. > > Kathleen > > > > > the truth, as always, is more prosaic: back in September 2013, the > > SOTM working group reported "The time of one state of the map (and > > therefore all the sponsors) is over, so we need to think about the > > role in the conference(s) in funding the operations of the OSMF and > > server system. Previously it has been our main annual source of > > income." [2]. as a result, other funding options were explored, and > > the board minuted "The OSMF funding model for 2014 and beyond is based > > on a combined model .... OSMF organised conferences (State Of The Map) > > should continue to be at least self-financing." [3] in response. > > > > the suggestion that the SOTM working group members are not motivated > > is a new one to me. the last report from SOTM working group itself [4] > > did not say anything of the sort. if any of them are reading this and > > are feeling unable to continue, then - please! - let us know. i'm sure > > alternative plans can be made, and i understand how hard it is to push > > through to finishing something which has sapped all of your energy > > (see the license change saga). > > > > so, did OSMF reduce the profitability of SOTM - no. did OSMF reduce > > the motivation of SOTM organisers - no. i, also, hope that SOTM > > happens, and i hope it is very successful. > > > > OSMF working groups are made up of members of the community - like > > yourself - and if you feel strongly about some issues then i urge you > > to offer your assistance to a working group, or join one. the OSMF > > board is democratically elected and, although it's a lot of work, you > > might consider running at the next AGM (iirc, at SOTM14). > > > > cheers, > > > > matt > > > > (opinions above are solely my own except for quotations drawn from the > > sources below) > > > > [1] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2007-March/000217.html > > [2] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EZHwUhWoRJ__DzmIW-FgzEKktji9AZQ1K_UDFx_PXrc/pub > > [3] http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board_Meeting_Minutes_2013-12-10 > > [4] > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LVGogPGbFT88bfNY1MpK5PRZA9qi1Ys6QFz0Cl7OYcY/pub > > > > _______________________________________________ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
