I hasten to add - I’m not sure by “decision” this was a minuted formal resolution to scale everything back, but it’s certainly the observable result of the new opinions on the board.
Steve On Apr 5, 2014, at 8:19 AM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: > 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
