From OpenStreetMap Foundation
< Board‎ | Minutes

Draft minutes.

Location: Video room
using BigBlueButton.

Please note that this video chat was not open to observers.

Date and time: Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 13:00 UTC - Countdown


Board members

  • Eugene Alvin Villar (co-ordinator)
  • Amanda McCann
  • Roland Olbricht
  • Tobias Knerr

Not Present

  • Mikel Maron
  • Guillaume Rischard
  • Jean-Marc Liotier

Officers and board

Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi.


Not open to observers.

Membership prerequisites

Draft by Tobias Knerr - which might be amended - and will be put to vote by the membership at the General Meeting in April:

"Using its powers under §15 of the Articles of Association the board of directors shall reject applications for membership or associate membership if the applicant has not demonstrably contributed to OpenStreetMap on at least 42 days. The specific form of the contributions (e.g. mapping vs. non-mapping) does not make a difference for the fulfillment of these prerequisites. The board may delegate verification and rejection of membership applications to a working group".

The proposed measure, if voted, will apply only to new OSMF members.

On types of contributions

  • 42 days of edits to the OSM wiki or commits to Github project would count as contributions.
  • It's hard to define some contributions. e.g. participation in OSM non-official social channels.
    • We should stick with things that are easy to prove and difficult to game, such as mapping.
    • Mapping is the core of the project and mapping edits could accumulate over time (there will be no limit of one year to get 42 days of contributions, such as currently with the active contributor membership program).
  • It would be complicated to find rules for all the cases of non-mapping contributions.

The text mentions "demonstrated" contributions: it's up to the applicant to prove the contributions.

On 42 day threshold

42 days limit is harder to game - substantial investment to the project before you become an OSMF member.

On proposed additional criterion of applications being supported by existing OSMF members

Suggested additional criterion:
If other OSMF members vouch for another person's membership application, membership is granted.
- This could be instead - or in addition to - the criterion of 42 days.
- The OSMF members who could show support would have to be members longer than X year(s).
- The OSMF members could limit their support to Y number of applicants per year.
- Support would be subject to conflict of interest rules.

Points during discussion

  • We don't want to have circles of people confirming each other.
  • Maybe this could be an optional support, but not a hard criterion.
  • Could be used by companies.
  • This would be a complex criterion that would be used in a small percentage of applications (the non-mapping ones), so adding complexity as a hard criterion might not be worth it.

Other suggestions

  • Questionnaire or quiz of OSM contributor terms.
  • We could add an optional field on the application for expressing support.

Suggested timeline

  • Soon: Ask the membership for feedback on the proposed resolution.
  • After February board meeting: Announcement of the general meeting.
  • 24 March board meeting: The board to vote on proposing the resolution. Could be replaced by an earlier circular resolution.
  • 25 March: Soft deadline for sending the general meeting announcement with the text of the proposed resolution.
  • 22-30 April: Members to vote on the resolution during the general meeting.

Action item

Tobias Knerr to email the membership, the special committee on takeover protection and the Membership Working Group in order to kickstart the public consultation for the resolution.

Mailing list moderation

LCCWG = Local Chapters and Communities Working Group

  • Information about the proposed moderation team members has not been provided to the board by the LCCWG moderation subcommittee yet.
  • Waiting for report from Guillaume Rischard (Chairperson) from his meeting with Maggie Cawley (LCCWG moderation subcommittee).
  • LCCWG moderation subcommittee has also said they are working on a conflict of interest document.

Points mentioned during discussion

  • The LCCWG moderation subcommittee had plan to have Allan Mustard as the lead of the moderation team some time now.
  • Board members need to be able to support the selection of the moderation team based on the team members' experience.
  • The moderation team needs to have the consent of the people in the channels that will be moderated.

Discussion summarised after request.

The board discussed potential future steps.

Contributions without individual OSM accounts

There are other organisations/projects related to this discussion, not just Microsoft.

Action items

  • Amanda McCann (Secretary) to schedule the next Advisory Board meeting.
  • Tobias Knerr to email Microsoft with the Data Working Group (DWG) expectations regarding contributions without individual OSM accounts.

Recent Local Chapter applications

Windsor Hackforge

Application from Windsor Hackforge, a hackerspace in Canada, to become an OSMF local chapter for a small area in Canada.

  • They are willing to expand the area covered by the application, to include 2.5 million people.
  • They would like to talk to governmental bodies more authoritatively.
  • Amanda has emailed them.


  • Create a circular resolution to decline the application.
  • Talk to them as there is no Canadian Local Chapter yet.
  • Refine the minimum criteria for local chapter applications, regarding either region or population.
    • Comment that Iceland is sparsely populated and was the first local chapter.

Action item: Eugene Villar to talk to the Windsor-Essex Hackerspace.


No update.


OpenStreetMap Uganda

  • MapUganda is under the impression that their local chapter application is active.
  • Jean-Marc Liotier (board member) had emailed MapUganda regarding their application.


  • Decline the application for now, via a circular.
    • Comment that circulars are used for urgent matters but also for topics previously discussed during board meetings.

Other points mentioned during discussion

  • A large proportion of MapUganda's income was for collecting proprietary geodata (some of which are not relevant to OSM) which was supplied to a governmental agency.
  • They might have to choose either to have such contracts or be a local chapter.
  • This is the second local chapter application from Africa. The first one was from OpenStreetMap RDC for the Democratic Republic of Congo (approved).

Action item: Amanda McCann to email Jean-Marc Liotier and create a circular for the MapUganda local chapter application.

Software dispute resolution panel for iD editor

The software dispute resolution panel responded that they didn't have any cases of disputes so far.


  • Keep the panel for another year with the same composition if they are interested, and re-evaluate after an additional year.
  • Email the OSMF members about the status of the panel and the board plan.
  • Vote at the February public meeting.

Regarding reappointment of panel members

Terms of office

The term of office for members of the Panel shall be two years, except that in the first year of operation, two of the members shall have a term of office of one year. In this manner, each year either two or three members of the panel will potentially turn over, allowing for some overlap and institutional memory. Members may be reappointed up to two times, but must step down after a maximum of three terms in a row, and may be reappointed after a one-term break.

Points mentioned during discussion

  • The board has currently no information on who serves one year and two year terms.
  • The panel might not be more active in the future.


  • Change the charter and simplify the terms of office.
  • Randomly pick the persons that will be reappointed for the second year.

Decision and action item

Decision: Have the topic on the February public meeting.

Action item: Tobias Knerr to start the public consultation of the membership about the software dispute resolution panel.

Status of Licensing Working Group actions

Jean-Marc Liotier (board) emailed the Licensing Working Group (LWG) but the request might have been indirect.


  • Board members with free time could speak to big data users.
  • Wait, as there has been some activity in previous Licensing Working Group meetings.

Any other business

HOT trademark grant

There was a brief mention that Amanda will check the latest related email.

Discussion on agenda topics ended 83 minutes after start.