OSM would not have such data. The Kerala state health department would be the only source I can think of. Please see this: https://dashboard.kerala.gov.in/

Simon, I use the term montization in the sense found in the Wikipedia article “Monetization”, section “Revenue from business operations”. ;-)

Hi, Rob,

In addition to the limitations of numbers of WGs we have a limitation on the number of volunteers currently engaged in the WGs, and that is a serious constraint. We need to recruit more people to assist via the WGs, and any ideas you and others have on how to do that would be welcome. The DWG and OWG are particularly hard pressed.

No, I don’t think we disagree seriously.

Regarding your comment, “You also wouldn’t get a full picture as on some channels the views of the vocal minority don’t match the views of the silent majority,” you are correct that part of my motivation (and part of the reason some of the individuals and groups I called were pointed out to me by others) was to hear from people who do not routinely publish their opinions. It is true that we receive a great deal of unsolicited advice on how OSMF should function, but I believe that active outreach is an important augmentation to that flow of information.

apm

Rob,

Thanks for this. I didn’t sense from any of the respondents a desire to grow into a “super sized organisation” as you gently put it. Rather, I sensed pride that OSM does so much with so little, but while acknowledging that, a recognition that the infrastructure is at risk so something needs to be done to assure a stable platform going forward.

In a sense we already have a tiered/hierarchical arrangements with the working groups. Two-tiered, to be precise: Board->working groups. So far in the conversations I did not sense a desire from any quarter for that to change, or a particular need at this point.

As an aside, I should share with you my own analysis of why OSM has not evolved along the same lines as Wikimedia, i.e., why Steve Coast is not a clone of Jimmy Wales (apologies in advance to Steve). As an economist among other professional qualifications I periodically put on my econ spectacles and view the world through that prism.

• Wikimedia offers a free good to the public but has no way of monetizing it once it is published, thus for Jimmy Wales to support himself and his avocation, he needed to grow his NGO into something attracting large enough donations that it could provide him and his colleagues livable salaries.
• OSM offers a free good to the public but as raw data that can be transformed into a higher-value product, which in turn may be sold, which is why a commercial ecosystem evolved in parallel to OSM.

That commercial ecosystem is the source of livable salaries for much of the OSM community, as well as the corporate donations. These are two superficially similar volunteer-oriented models with a deep and decisive difference, and that difference is why OSM is unlikely to grow into something like Wikimedia. It simply doesn’t have to. We will find our own way, and most probably remain relatively small.

apm

Peda,

Since the conversations were confidential and pursuit of honest views is more important than full disclosure of identities I will not divulge with whom the conversations were held (42 years of holding a government security clearance has taught me the value of holding at least some information in confidence). However, I believe I can answer some of your questions on statistics without revealing identities:

• 43 conversations to date
• 6 individual conversations with females ** females were also present in two group conversations, but I didn’t keep a tally so cannot tell you how many were in either group
• 9 LCC conversations: 2 Africa, 3 Asia, 3 Europe (not counting a second conversation with one of them with followup questions), 1 North America
• 9 corporations/private firms in 11 conversations ** some conversations were with people who are employed by companies using OSM data but who spoke from personal viewpoints and not on behalf of their employers (this is another reason behind confidentiality)
• 5 of the conversations with LCCs were with people of color (Africa and Asia). I don’t know if anybody else I talked to considers her/himself a person of color–I didn’t ask.

If I were to give you more detail than that, you could probably deduce some identities, so I will stop.

If you have suggestions for people I should hear from, please provide me via e-mail with cyberintroductions to anyone you think would be worth asking the two questions I have been posing. Many thanks.

apm

@H@mlet, some of the board members have tested Jitsi and reported it was a bit flaky. Thanks for the tip–Jitsi might be a fallback if BigBlueButton doesn’t work. I’ve videoconferenced with up to 20 participants using BigBlueButton with no problems.

@woodpeck, well, actually, I would not ever foresee the OSMF shutting down servers to spite the OSM community, since that would not be in keeping with the OSMF’s responsibility to support OSM. No servers, no OSM, kaput, epic failure by the OSMF Board. As far as enforcement goes of any OSMF policy, in fact, the only OSM body really capable of sanctioning anybody in the community is the DWG, which the OSMF Board cannot exactly be said to control though we would like to imagine or pretend that we can periodically influence the DWG’s thinking. So I don’t see any danger here since I have learned generally to trust the DWG’s judgment. :-)

To all: Simon’s, Christoph’s, Peda’s, Rory’s, Mikel’s, and Frederik’s comments point in my view to a question of semantics, not intent. Please send your suggested edits to the diversity committee.

Furthermore, if the community as a whole rejects the notion of diversity in the community, it is in very serious trouble. Creating a global map requires a global effort, in every sense of that word. Is anyone actually contending that promoting/accepting diversity of the OSM community is bad? As someone who has been subjected to anti-American diatribes in the OSM space, including being called a “Trump puppet”, and being accused of bias in my mapping because I am an American (huh? An American bias to drawing roads? Meine Güter!) I have rather strong feelings about the need for a statement on diversity and anti-discrimination (this may sound strange coming from a hetero Anglo-Saxon-Celt-Bavarian-origin male, but there you have it). As the AGG shows, this is emphatically not a purely Anglo-American concern and equivalent texts are available in other languages.

One final point, in three parts, responding to Christoph’s remarks on capitalism. 1) I have lived under pure socialism, nearly three years in the USSR, and pure socialism doesn’t work, either. I’ll tell you more over a beer someday, and tell you about Soviet beer, too :-) 2) You need a mix of capitalism and socialism for an economy to work and for some social justice, and as Frederik pointed out regarding capitalism, “…this does not work without some regulation in economy, neither does it work without any regulation in OSM.” Or as another OSM old-timer told me, “Super organisation isn’t necessary, but anarchy isn’t an answer, either.” The OSMF Board does not strive for “super organisation” (it would make us all late for dinner, and take away time from our hobbies) but we don’t believe in anarchy. 3) Speaking as an economist who studied both classical Western economics and Marxian economics, socio-economic status explicitly includes wealth, period. This is known knowledge.

Christoph,

First off, you SHOULD write a book at some point :-) I will buy it and ask you to autograph it.

Perhaps given your objections to the text we should adopt language to the effect that diversity of the mapping community is encouraged, and that discrimination is not tolerated “on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, gender, religion or belief, disability, age, or sexual orientation.”

The language in quotation marks comes from Germany’s Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz and can be seen here. It is European in origin, and is based on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1999.

The Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz is silent on the topic of paid mappers so continued differentiation between volunteer and paid mappers would not violate EU or German law, or OSMF policy, either.

Coming back to your objection on that score, if you really believe that a statement on diversity policy needs to stipulate in clear text that it does not repeal or otherwise impede organized editing guidelines, fine, let’s add that, maybe as a footnote. I still think that is unnecessary since organized editing falls under the rubric “how we map” and thus is the remit of the DWG, not the Board. But if you insist, fine. I surrender. Send your recommended text in your choice of languages to the new diversity committee.

mfG, apm

Christoph and Peda,

It appears we can agree that a diversity statement, this one, or any other, does not affect the organized editing guidelines, or the existing differentiation between volunteer and paid mappers. Those issues fall into the category of “how we map” and that is not in the Board’s remit. Let’s drop that subject and move on.

We also agree that the OSM community, with its ability to work across cultures and languages, and with its local knowledge which is transferred to the OSM data base, is the source of OSM’s strength. Nobody I have talked to disputes that. We all seem to agree that sustaining the OSM community is critical to OSM’s existence and success, and in fact should be our highest priority. So let’s drop that as a subject as well.

@Peda, you asked, was introducing a diversity statement in the first place a good idea? Yes, I think it is a good idea, and the fact that there is a debate about it both here and elsewhere indicates that it is important at least to some people in the community. Did the Board get ahead of itself? Maybe so, but from where I sit, getting the subject out in front of the community is worthwhile, and if it achieves its ultimate goal of broadening the reach of OSM’s community, and the map, it will have proven itself. Should it have gone out to the community in another (i.e., the usual) way? Well, I just looked at the draft Code of Conduct wiki page and noted it has been pending since 2010, and was last touched in 2018. That’s ten years waiting for a Code of Conduct to be adopted by the community. I don’t intend to wait ten years for a diversity statement to be adopted, or perhaps still have it in “draft”. The “OSM way” in that case hasn’t worked.

The talk about paralysis is not a strawman. I have heard from far too many people about board paralysis for the past five years (some even say 10) not to take it seriously. You and I will have to agree to disagree about that. This Board faces some serious issues on behalf of the Foundation and the community, and needs to chart a path that will allow OSM, with its community, to flourish into the future. That will not happen, as Russians would say, на самотёк, that is, by chance. We have to think consciously about where OSM will be in 15 years and prepare for that. That is in fact the Board’s job. A diversity policy that makes clear we embrace pretty much everybody who wants to contribute is part of that preparation.

Board actions will NOT affect how we map or what we map. The Board doesn’t exist to worry about that. Board actions will affect the state of our infrastructure, and potentially the breadth and scope of our geographic reach, if we actively pursue expansion of local communities and chapters, and encourage them to recruit more mappers. An explicit diversity policy that makes clear we welcome people from all backgrounds to the OSM mapping community is part of that.

And we can agree on one more thing for sure: retirement is great.

@Peda, regarding your first point, please see my post to the diary just above yours regarding “legal discrimination”. That should answer your question regarding paid versus volunteer mappers.

Regarding your second point, I believe we are having a discussion about the diversity statement, right now. If there is consensus that the policy should be amended, it will be amended. We now, however, have a target to shoot at (and Christoph, I agree with you, is doing an excellent job of fomenting debate–we are all in his debt).

As for your point on discrimination based on status of employment, I think that is a canard. I am volunteering my time to OSM now just as in the past, and if I have more time because I am retired today than I did a year ago, that is presumably to OSM’s benefit. Discrimination doesn’t enter the picture.

As for why the decision to adopt quickly and not put the statement out for several months of discussion, the Board has received strong feedback from a number of members of the community that the community as a whole is tired of ten years of Board inaction in the face of decisions that need to be made, and wants the Board to begin making decisions, particularly decisions that are pretty obvious. Adopting a policy that discrimination on illegitimate grounds will not be tolerated seems pretty obvious. If anybody believes that OSM should discriminate on grounds of ethnicity, gender, what passport you carry, age, religion, political outlook, and so on, well, I’d like you hear your justification for that.

Now, we can argue about the verbiage (which we seem to be doing), and we can discuss interpretation (does this supersede the organized mapping guidelines? No it doesn’t), but the undercurrent to all this is resistance to the notion that the Board should make decisions at all. That appears to be the real battleground. Much of the OSM community, I suspect a majority, is tired of Board paralysis and inaction in the face of some challenges, while others in the OSM community seem to fear any Board action (for whatever reason) and are protesting a Board decision that, on the face of it, is pretty tame and to many community members is quite obvious.

Who seriously opposes in concept a statement of policy that OSM as a community will not discriminate against community members on illegitimate grounds?

Christoph, I honestly do not see a cultural clash between what you say, “…growth of the OSM community is desirable because OpenStreetMap is a valuable endeavour that brings joy, education and cultural exchange to many thousands of people world wide and allowing more people to participate in that is both beneficial for those who newly join as well as for those who already participate…In other words: The mapper community should grow for its own sake, not because it provides a source of power for someone.” and my statement, “We seek to make OSM stronger and more robust, broader in its geographic reach, and to prepare it for another 15 years of mapping the world, bearing in mind that this powerful cross-cultural cohesion has created something that has been transformed from a hobby into a virtual necessity for people in certain parts of the globe…We do…seek to support efforts by the working groups, local communities and chapters, and most important, the OSM mappers, to continue to make it better and better.” By the way, the “power” to which I refer is the empowerment of individuals who use the map. I saw that with my own eyes, the degree to which ordinary peoples’ lives got better thanks to existence of OSM.

You seem to fear among other things that a policy of “non-discrimination” would nullify the organized editing rules and open the door for paid mappers to wreak havoc on the map. That is not the intent of any diversity policy. Organized editing rules would remain in place and in that sense, yes, OSM would discriminate between members of the community of volunteer mappers who contribute data for whatever reason, and paid mappers employed by an outsider who seeks to add data for the sake of having more data. That constitutes what I in my parochial American chauvinistic nativist dominant cultural mindset am allowed to call “legal discrimination”. As an American government supervisor, for example, I was allowed to discriminate in performance evaluations between good performers and bad performers. There is no dispute there.

Similarly, if a mapper were to violate the “How We Map” guidelines, that would of course continue to be grounds for discriminatory sanction from the DWG. However, if a community member is from India and not Germany, from Africa and not North America, is female, or transgender, or has darker skin than you and I do, or dyes her hair blue, or professes a particular religion (or no religion), these alone would not be grounds for discrimination and exclusion from the community, and would not be grounds for personal attacks in communications.

Now, all that said, we do clash, and seriously, on one important point. Your position seems to be that OSM exists for its own sake, and that such a status is sacred. My point is that OSM now has such an impact on the lives of others, it can no longer afford the luxury of selfishness and view the map solely as a means to self indulgence. We now bear a greater responsibility than that. As one of the old-timers told me, “OSM is no longer a Saturday morning mapping club.” He meant by that, that OSM must adapt to new circumstances. You oppose that, and that is what our debate is really about. I believe that we can preserve the community, which is the source of OSM’s strength, and continue to rely on local knowledge, which is why our map is so good, and have lots of fun mapping, while also not shirking that greater responsibility. We may even be able to do it on a continued small budget that avoids financial dependence on outsiders, if that is what the community as a whole wants. But I do not see a way of avoiding the greater responsibility, and do not intend to try.

mfG, Allan Mustard

Christoph, thank you again for your very thoughtful contribution to the discussion. I have a few reactions.

First, regarding your statement, “When i cited How We Map above i did so not to source authoritive policy on OSMs values, i did so to illustrate the actual values thousands of mappers work by every day. How We Map it is the only relatively comprehensive documentation of this kind we have and i regard it therefore as one of the most important texts of the OSM community. It is by no means perfect - no text written in a single language can even hope to ever accomplish that. But it provides a very helpful starting point to any volunteer newly engaging in the project to help them understand what it is about in essence.”

“How We Map” describes just that, how we map, and that includes me, a mapper now for 5 years. However, it does not describe why we map, and further, does not touch at all on uses of the map, or the ecosystem we cannot ignore that has grown up around OSM and now has certain expectations from us mappers. I do not see anything in “How We Map” that is in real conflict with the diversity statement. OSM is no longer just mappers in Europe and North America. It has grown, and it includes software developers (many paid by outsiders), users of our data (who contribute funds, professional legal counsel, and imagery, among other things), and others who contribute beyond mapping. It has spread to include mappers in Asia (including me for five years), Africa, and Latin America. “How We Map” simply doesn’t cover everything that OSM has become over the last 15 years. Every time I look for something on the wiki, I am impressed with the sheer scope of what OSM encompasses.

Regarding your statement, “…the much better and much more supportive thing the OSMF board could have done is strengthening the basic premise and value of cross cultural cooperation of the OSM community and more actively communicating it to the public - something that has been distinctly lacking during the past years.”

The previous Board constituted a Local Chapters and Communities Working Group that is working precisely on expanding cross-cultural cooperation by recruiting ever more communities into OSM. This is not empty talk. It is acting as I write this. I should also point out that I appear, based on reactions of those I contacted, to be the first Board chair to have reached out in the first month in office to local chapters (so far Ireland, UK, Germany–you, and India) to hear their thoughts and views. I will travel to Riga to confer with the Baltic community in March at SOTM Baltics, and am setting up a conference call with OSM Japan. Others with follow, and what I learn will be shared with the LCCWG. As for communicating all this to the public, yes, we could do a better job of that. We will work on that, too. The local communities are IMHO the key to expanding cross-cultural cooperation, because they are the ones who can best recruit new mappers and other contributors. They speak the local languages!

On socio-economic status, the Wikipedia article to which you provided a link explicitly includes wealth as a factor. I still don’t understand your point on this.

I must also protest against your statement, “Ich seh das Ganze allerdings in so fern durchaus positiv, dass es potentiell äußerst lehrreich für Alle ist - für die OSM-Community, indem es noch mal allen ganz klar macht, dass man sich keineswegs blind darauf verlassen kann, dass die OSMF im Interesse der OSM-Community handelt.” An accusation that the OSMF Board does not act in the interests of the OSM community is simply false.

I cannot speak about previous boards, but this Board takes seriously its responsibility to the entire OSM community, and that includes mappers around the world, not only in Europe and North America; that includes software developers and data users as well as mappers. We bear greater responsibility today than we did in 2007–there are now people who depend on OSM data because OSM data are the best and in some cases (Turkmenistan is a case in point) the only cartographic data of any quality publicly available where they live. Such people tend to live outside North America and Europe. That is a direct consequence of the “How We Map” values and of the community’s major strength–its local knowledge. As you wrote, “The essence of OSM is the cooperation of people across language and culture barriers based on the shared goal of documenting verifiable local knowledge of the geography of the world in a common database. This is what holds OSM together, what enables people who might not understand a word from each other to none the less work together on a common goal.” That unquestionably is the source of OSM’s strength, and nobody (at least nobody who has spoken or written to me) disputes that. I saw that with my own eyes in Turkmenistan, after teaching master classes in OSM and afterwards seeing contributions by local mappers who spoke no English.

Thus, to think that the OSMF Board, and I in particular, would seek to change “How We Map” or to jeopardize the community’s source of strength is to misunderstand completely the Board’s motivations. We seek to make OSM stronger and more robust, broader in its geographic reach, and to prepare it for another 15 years of mapping the world, bearing in mind that this powerful cross-cultural cohesion has created something that has been transformed from a hobby into a virtual necessity for people in certain parts of the globe. I had personal experience with that in Turkmenistan, seeing how a digital cartographic database to which I contributed roughly a quarter million data points changed quality of life.

Does the Board seek “data perfection”? Of course not. No map has ever been perfect (and Turkmenistan’s remains a work in progress). We do, however, seek to support efforts by the working groups, local communities and chapters, and most important, the OSM mappers, to continue to make it better and better.

I will close with a quote from “Spiderman” (which you should feel free to attack as symbolic of American cultural dominance if you should wish :-): “With great power comes great responsibility.” OSM has grown into something quite powerful. We need to accept the responsibility that comes with that power, and to nurture and grow the source of that power, the OSM mappers..

mfG, Allan Mustard

Christoph, thank you for your thoughtful (as always!) analysis and point of view. First, let’s review OSM’s Core Values, as posted on the OSM Foundation wiki:

“Core Values “The Foundation’s core values for OSM are (this list is not meant to be exhaustive):

We want to make the best map data set of the world OSM Data is available under a Free and Open licence to everybody OSM is powered by its Community. Engage positively with the Community, be a good and respectful neighbour and assume good intent. We want OSM data to be used as widely as possible. Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other sources OSM wants you to map the things you care about and will ensure that you have the freedom to do so. This safeguards the accessibility of our map to diverse users with differing needs.”

With these core values in mind, I feel compelled to respond to two of your points, to wit: “data quality as the project’s ultimate goal (‘create a better map’) - in contrast to our traditional OpenStreetMap values (like ‘community cohesion over data perfection’)” and “linguistic diversity in the project is seen exclusively as the domain of the local chapters.”

On the first point, OSM exists to create “a map of the whole world that anyone can use.” The relevant core value is in fact the very first one listed, “We want to make the best map data set of the world.” The ultimate goal of the project is thus to create that map. To do that, to create a global map, we need lots of participants and contributors from all over the world, and that implies a very diverse–perhaps an ultimately diverse–community. Is community cohesion important? Yes, it is not only important, it is fundamental! This is why the Board is bent on creating an environment in which all feel welcome to contribute, which is diverse, and in which discrimination on spurious grounds is not tolerated. The relevant core value here is the third one listed above, “OSM is powered by its Community. Engage positively with the Community, be a good and respectful neighbour and assume good intent.” With your help and added insights, we can as a community do that. I frankly fail to understand your objection to this effort, As for your allegation of cultural bias, I would point you to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the foundation document for all such documents. What the Board seeks community consensus on is based on those universally adopted principles.

On the second point, I think you take it a bit too far. The Board does not necessarily see linguistic diversity exclusively as the domain of the local chapters. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am unaware of any Board policy on the matter. Speaking now strictly for myself, however, I see the local chapters and communities as best equipped to deal with issues of linguistic diversity, and if there is a role for the OSMF, they will so inform us. OSM’s single greatest strength, in my view at least, is its local contributors (mappers, software developers, organizers, et al) to contribute local knowledge of what the world looks like. That is also reflected in the core values as “Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other sources.” Who better than they–local contributors–to diversify OSM’s linguistic reach? Or do you realistically expect Board members quickly to master over 100 different languages in order to communicate with the community?

As for English-language dominance, I frankly don’t see much alternative to English as a common language for OSM. Globally it is the most widely used common language, period (I say that as someone who worked in international affairs and diplomacy for just short of 38 years and saw English used in every corner of the world as the primary language of both diplomacy and commerce). This is less related to “cultural dominance” than it is a recognition of reality. What language do you propose in its stead? Я свободно владею русским языком и готов перейти на русский как общий язык проекта, однако боюсь, что мало кто согласится с таким предложением.

Further regarding language, I take issue with your point about “inevitably associated cultural one-sidedness.” That is a potential issue, but the remedy, as I see it, is promotion of local chapters and communities that will increasingly have a voice in OSM affairs. In my one month (so far) as chairperson of the OSMF Board, I have been struck by how little I hear from anyone outside North America or western Europe, with the exception of one contributor in Minsk, who pings me regularly. Asia, Africa, and Latin America are virtually silent, at least in the channels I have time to monitor, and that is not healthy for OSM. That is why I have reached out personally to OSM communities in the last three weeks, will continue to reach out to them, and will continue to urge the LCCWG to elicit more participation from the local chapters and communities. We cannot all speak a hundred languages apiece. To breach the linguistic barriers we have to work through our local communities and chapters, and THAT, as I see it, is the way to keep “cultural one-sidedness” from becoming “inevitable”. If you have a better solution, please share it!

Regarding some other points, I have questions for you. Does not socio-economic status also include wealth as a factor? Why would wealth need to be listed separately? Why would we want to discriminate against a mapper somebody else is paying versus a volunteer mapper? Private companies are paying for the imagery we use, for software development; are you suggesting we should discriminate against them as well? I don’t see where you are going with that line of logic.

Vielen Dank, und mit freundlichen Grüssen, Allan Mustard

Heather, many thanks for this. I had taken an initial crude stab at this but your tagging goes deeper.

@DeBigC, are you sure you don’t want to offer to do that? You’re not the only person who thinks the SWOT needs that type of analysis, and many fingers make the work light…

I’d love to, Christoph, but I’m already booked for overseas trips twice in March, and have to spend at least some time at home (I do have other things to do besides OSM :-) Please alert me when another opportunity comes up. I need a trip to Deutschland to keep my deutsche Sprache from disappearing completely (it is already zu schwach).

I don’t see substantial disagreement between us, Christoph. The OSM Foundation and Board support the project but do not “control” it, that is clear. However, support of the project necessarily involves making decisions on providing facilities necessary to the survival and flourishing of the project, and protecting the project from any external predatory interests that may view OSM as competition or potentially as a ripe fruit to be picked, among other things. Some minimal leadership is necessary. Now, if you disagree with that–and want to advocate for a do-nothing Board that merely twiddles its thumbs–we may as well all just resign, dissolve the Board, and let nature take its course.

Discourse is good, and that mode of operation will continue. But the Board’s paralysis–about which numerous community members have complained to me–must end. An “action item” list dating back to 2016 is ridiculous, and is compelling evidence that modification of our approach is needed.

If the Board decides to deal with the diversity issue, which is on the agenda for the January 30 meeting, it will naturally contend with the biases you articulated above, particularly the geographic bias. As for paying dues, I really don’t see that as a barrier since a past Board decided on a new dues schedule that case by case allows for waiving of dues for applicants from certain countries. The only potential problem I see in addressing bias via diversification of the community is if protests against the Board’s taking action cause it to revert to paralysis and take no action. :-)

@imagico, Yes, Christoph, there will have to be a lot of discussion. I anticipate there will be a highly vocal minority of voices and that the vast majority of community members will remain silent, however, so discussion will need to be focused. We will have to identify the issues that need to be addressed by the Board and the Foundation, and then in some cases propose actions to the Foundation members. That is a classic leadership function and one I have performed in various other organizations for over 30 years. I do not intend to be a passive Board member who sits by and watches as threats to OSM unfold, as opportunities are lost, or weaknesses are exploited. I owe OSM too much to allow that to happen on my watch.

If the Board does not lead, nobody leads, and the community/Foundation/OSM stagnate, or worse. There is palpable frustration in the community over Board inaction. In my mere 3-1/2 weeks as Board chairman I have already received quite an earful from disparate and varied community members who have taken the time to share their thoughts. I therefore do not believe it is in OSM’s interests for the Board to remain relatively passive.

The OSM Foundation is by law the governing body, and the Board has a legally binding fiduciary responsibility to the Foundation and its members. The Foundation consists of, I am told, about 1,500 members. For a 95% confidence level and plus or minus 3% accuracy, we need a sample of 1,066 Foundation members to vote on behalf of the 1 million active community members. Thus, a poll of the Foundation members will indeed accurately reflect the views of the community if we get 2/3 voter turnout. To achieve this level of turnout, we cannot refer EVERY decision to the Foundation membership. That would lead to voter fatigue and reduced voter turnout. Hence, the Board will necessarily make some decisions, and I anticipate those decisions will be the “no brainers” that are pretty obviously in the best interests of the whole community. Stickier/controversial proposals would however go to the Foundation membership. Exactly how the Board might decide to do that, and how often, and how to divide up decisions between Foundation votes and Board decisions will have to be discussed at a future Board meeting.

I do wonder what kind of bias you perceive in the Foundation membership (“OSMF membership…is highly biased in composition”). What is the bias, and how did you measure it? I must also point out that if the Foundation and Board do not act on issues the community believes are important, because a vocal minority insists that Foundation or Board action is “not the OSM way”, well, that is tyranny by a minority of the Foundation’s members, and that is truly “not the OSM way.” Consensus is of course a wonderful thing but when consensus cannot be achieved, and a decision is needed, we should not allow a minority to block decisions that need to be made.

WRT your comment, “the board members are themselves often invested in specific interests,” Board members are required to recuse themselves from voting on issues in which they face a conflict of interest. I believe this Board takes that obligation seriously, and the fact that Board meetings are open to Foundation members who take the time to log in to Mumble or read the minutes of meetings allows full transparency on such recusals. Speaking for myself, as a retired public servant whose only part-time occupation at present is in a realm far removed from cartography, I see no vesting in specific interests on my part, aside from continuing to promote OSM as a map of the world that anyone can use.

In closing please let me underscore how seriously I take my fiduciary responsibility to the Foundation and through it to OSM, OSM’s many contributors, and OSM’s community. I will not be passive or idle in my fulfillment of that responsibility. You may not (almost certainly will not) like everything the Foundation, Board, or I do or propose, but you can rest assured I am motivated by a desire to see OSM continue to exist as a primarily crowd-sourced, community-oriented mapping project far into the future. I believe the Foundation and the Board share that desire.

@Heather, well, take a look at Darafei’s “hate chart” and the thread associated with it on Twitter. There are factions, and we will have to contend with their existence. I wouldn’t call them merely communities within the larger community. I’ve worked and volunteered in too many structures over the years not to recognize it when I see it. If we can coax folks into stopping factionalism and becoming communities within the community, that will be a good thing, but we aren’t there yet. A good start would be to cut out the name-calling. The “OSM methodology” as I understand it consists mainly of crowd-sourcing and its innate “doocracy”. That is good in many ways and in most cases but we are seeing in the SWOT strong indications that it is not a good governance model in all instances. One of the tasks before the community, the Foundation, and the Board will be to parse this: which issues and tasks can safely be left to the community of doers (the more, the better; I do want to spend time on both mapping and antique furniture restoration, and not only on Board work), which need a vote of the Foundation membership to decide (issues on which there is not consensus, so majority rule must apply), and which can be entrusted to the Board for decisions (issues on which there appears to be broad consensus). With an “action item” list dating back to 2016, the Board needs to clear the backlog and then start work on the most important of the issues being floated in the SWOT.

Christoph, SWOT is a brainstorming tool, in its initial stage. That’s where we are. Goals have not been specified. If you insist, I will say as chairman of the board of OSMF that my goal is the survival of OSM as a “map of the world that anyone can use,” and if others wish to appropriate that as their guidepost, that’s fine with me.

As to cultural dominance, cultural bias, etc., all the obvious dominance of American business and the U.S. economy aside, I have lived in one European country, two Asian countries, and Latin American country, plus Turkey and Russia/USSR, which are split between Europe and Asia. Guess what–not only businesses, but NGOs and others in those countries use SWOT analysis. To get into the Indian Administrative Service, applicants are advised to study SWOT analysis to pass the economics portion. I could continue but enough has already been said. Yes, SWOT analysis was invented at Stanford by an American, but it is no longer a strictly American tool. It was culturally appropriated globally a long time ago, and is now like OSM, a “tool that anyone can use.” I intend to use it, and look forward to your substantive contributions to the wiki page.