From OpenStreetMap Foundation
< Board‎ | Minutes

Meeting date and start time: Thursday 29 June 2023 at 13:00 UTC
Minutes approved by the board on 2023-07-27.

Please note that the individual points mentioned below usually reflect the opinion of one or more board members and not necessarily of the whole board. Official board decisions are taken during the meetings or by voting using circulars, and votes are listed in the minutes.

The topics of the agenda get locked one week before the meeting.

Location: Video room
using BigBlueButton.



Board members

["talk" time*] Name (role, notes)

  • [10'] Arnalie Vicario
  • [06'] Craig Allan
  • [36'] Guillaume Rischard (Chairing)
  • [23'] Mikel Maron
  • [12'] Mateusz Konieczny
  • [12'] Sarah Hoffmann

*Includes time when the microphone was activated due to noise.

Officers and board

Not Present

  • Roland Olbricht (apologies)

Minutes by Dorothea Kazazi.


  • 5 guests

Open to all OSMF members.

You are welcome to ask questions or to comment (via voice or on the chat) at the end of the meeting.

  • Please mute your microphone when you join, and to preserve bandwidth, refrain from turning on your webcam.
  • If you are in a low-bandwidth environment, you may benefit from using BigBlueButton's low-bandwidth settings. To assess them, click on the 3 dots on the top right of the black video-window.


Previous minutes

Circular Resolutions

2023/Res10 Pay raise for Senior Site Reliability Engineer as part of the annual review

The board approves to raise the salary for our SSRE1 Grant as agreed on during the annual review. This is to account for the raising cost of living.

Approved on 2023-03-30 with 6 votes in favour: Mikel Maron, Guillaume Rischard, Roland Olbricht, Mateusz Konieczny, Sarah Hoffmann, Arnalie Vicario.
1 did not vote: Craig Allan.

Circular by Sarah Hoffmann.

1 See Employees

2023/Res11 Adopt changes to Finance Committee Structure

As detailed in (link redacted as text editable by anyone. Copy of the content regarding the Finance Committee Structure below)

Composition of the Finance Committee

Board members

  • Mikel Maron - Chairperson of the committee, elected in December 2020.
  • Roland Olbricht - OSMF Treasurer
  • Guillaume Rischard

Fundraising advisors

The Finance Committee selects various advisors to lend their experience and expertise to our fundraising activities. They are invited to our meetings, but not expected to regularly attend. They are consulted from time to time as need arises. They are not full members of the committee, but do have access to some internal documents, so are requied to have an NDA with the OSMF.

  • Courtney Williamson - Fundraising consultant
  • Allan Mustard - former OSMF board chairperson.
  • Allen Gunn - Aspiration Tech
  • Maggie Cawley - Executive Director of OSM-US (OpenStreetMap Local Chapter in the US)
  • Tyler Radford - former Executive Director of Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team

Advisors were approved on 2022-05-23 and 2023-03-30

Ambassadors and other assistance

Want to get involved? Be an Ambassador!

For our fundraising campaigns, we engage OSM community members from around the world to promote and advocate for OSMF. These ambassadors rally support for the campaign in their local communities.

We also engage with volunteers to help with various tasks, like design help with our donation site and other communication assets.

Approved on 2023-06-08 with 5 votes in favour: Mikel Maron, Guillaume Rischard, Roland Olbricht, Mateusz Konieczny, Sarah Hoffmann.
2 did not vote: Arnalie Vicario, Craig Allan.

Circular by Mikel Maron.

2023/Res12 Update the Working Group Conflict of Interest policy to extend to moderators etc.

Update the Working Group Conflict of Interest policy to change the first sentence to state "By board decision, this document is used as the default Conflict of Interest policy for any Working Group, committee, special committee, similar OSM Foundation body, or moderators of an OSMF-hosted communications channel."

Approved on 2023-06-24 with 3 votes in favour: Mikel Maron, Guillaume Rischard, Roland Olbricht
1 against: Craig Allan
The text itself refers only to Working Group Members. This contradicts the impact of the first sentence.
My first choice is a re-edit to change the phrase 'Working Group member' throughout to 'member' and by that change we will fix that problem.
My second choice is wording to say 'Working Group member' includes the other roles.
I support Sarah. We should allow wider comments on the policy update. I'd like to see it circulated as a proposed Board resolution.)
2 abstained:
Sarah Hoffmann
(I disagree on procedure here. This should be put before the moderators who are affected by this, at least for information, before a board vote on it is started.)
Arnalie Vicario
(Agree with Sarah. The previous procedure included consulting with WGs. This should be discussed with the moderators as well before board vote.
"The board on 2020-05 adopted the following Conflict of Interest Policy and decided to consult the Working Groups (WGs) if there should be a Conflict of Interest policy for WGs and committees and what changes have to be made to the board CoI policy to make it applicable to these groups.")
1 did not vote: Mateusz Konieczny

Circular by Guillaume Rischard.

Note: Policy as on 2023-06-17 (link for future comparisons).

2023/Res13 Approve active contributor membership application #2023061510000042

The Board currently decides on active contributor membership applications based on non-mapping contributions on a case-by-case basis.

Did not pass on 2023-06-27 with 2 against:
Sarah Hoffmann
(A perfect candidate for the 42 day mapping active contribution. Disagreement is only for contribution based on non-mapping activities.)
Arnalie Vicario
(mapping days - can reapply until 42days have been reached
project - would appreciate more documentation/details about the project. Once this is provided, it may support their application even with less than 42 mapping days.)
4 abstained:
Roland Olbricht
Mikel Maron
(I'm abstaining. They are very much on track to reach 42 days which would make approval automatic.)
Mateusz Konieczny
(Thanks for your mapping activity so far! For the application here:
1) there is no clear verifiable info about activity other then editing
2) editing will give automatic approval soon)
Craig Allan
(The applicant has put in a lot of work recently. They will reach 42 days in about 3-4 weeks at the current rate. At which point membership is automatic. There is no evidence of other work, organising the community etc, which would warrant early membership.)
1 did not vote: Guillaume Rischard

Application initially processed by the Membership Working Group.

2023/Res14 For facilitating 2022 and 2023 Screen to Screen Sessions, compensate Allen Gunn $4,000

Unanimously approved on 2023-06-28 with 7 votes in favour: Roland Olbricht, Arnalie Vicario, Guillaume Rischard, Sarah Hoffmann, Mikel Maron, Mateusz Konieczny (though doing it in the proper order (before job was done, not after it) would be preferable and more clear. In this case I would agree that it is a good idea, but it could be worse, risky and more complicated if that would not apply), Craig Allan (Ok. We can do that. It is a little confusing having someone working apparently pro-bono and then being given a gratuity in appreciation. But this is not the place to discuss that. We can pick it up later.)

Circular by Mikel Maron.

- 2023-06 screen-to-screen meeting
- 2023-03 screen-to-screen meeting
- 2022-02 screen-to-screen meeting (2-day session)
- Recurring individual contractors

Action item updates

Public board action items - About
Filter by assignee Arnalie Craig Guillaume Mateusz Mikel Roland Sarah Not assigned
Filter by milestone
2023 Q1
2023 Q2
2023 Q3
2023 Q4
Completion time not specified
Filter by label Example: any label # labels here (non-clickable)

Arnalie Vicario

Local Chapter action items

Prioritising Local Chapter action items. More updates during the related topic.

Craig Allan

Strategic Plan - Gathering and editing amendments

GitLab: Strategic Plan: Gathering and editing amendments

  • Submitted a report to the board outlining the strategic plan's timeline and framework.
  • Current status: gathering responses from the latest survey concerning the strategic plan.
  • Collection process: there is approximately a 24 hours delay. Will send something to the board during the weekend.
Executive director - Establish what we'd want an executive director to do/not do

GitLab: Executive director - Establish what we'd want an executive director to do/not do

Guillaume Rischard

Vector Tiles action items

GitLab: Vector Tiles: To secure funding
GitLab: Vector Tiles: To set up Engineering Working Group/Operations Working Group/board meeting, agree on go/no go

Topic on today's agenda.

  • Current status: specification stage.
  • Guillaume had discussions with Grant on how to structure the work and finding ways of getting better communication about the work.

Suggestion: approve the whole budget of EUR 33,000 and then agree with what we have in the circular ("Agree to a budget of 2k€ to pay Paul Norman to flesh out his vector tiles work plan and vector tiles proposal").
Rationale: to avoid coming multiple times back to the board for decisions.

Mikel Maron

FUNDRAISING: Secure resource to help with design assets


  • It's very important that we have a representative visual language for the fundraising campaign.
  • Several requests for help with design have been made.
  • It would be appreciated if anyone else has leads on qualified visual designers who might be able to help.
  • OSMF might need to allocate funds.

Proposed work: updating some colours and the logo and producing a banner for the website and updating the donate site.

Comment by Courtney Williamson (2023 fundraiser) that it's not a lot of work but graphic design and visual storytelling are highly skilled, and it's tough to task. It's also highly impactful in a way that we have to care about--even a color or logo change communicates a message about OSM.

Take the work of the fundraising committee, formulate it and share with the board


  • All board members should have access to the fundraising repository on GitLab.
  • Everything has been shared - if board members want to see something in addition, they can notify Mikel.
Mikel Maron and Arnalie Vicario to have a meeting on communication strategy


There might be a meeting tomorrow.

Second 2023 quarterly post from the OSMF Board


Blog post on the June 2023 screen-to-screen meeting was published.

Draft something regarding the collection of sponsor funds for local chapter conferences


Agenda item.

2023 Fundraising campaign launched


Aiming for mid-July.

Sarah Hoffmann

To have meeting with the Engineering Working Group to discuss possible communication venues


  • Discussed during FOSSGIS 2023 conference.
  • Action item to be closed.
To contact developers and set up an initial meeting


  • Currently in the process of organising together with the Engineering Working Group (EWG) the process for getting funds for website development from the German Sovereign Tech Fund.
EU registration - Find local points of contacts to clarify legal questions


Had a very informative call with the executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, who moved to Brussels.

  • Brussels seems very well suited for the kind of association they have.
  • Has bureaucracy.
  • Lawyer: the director did not recommend his lawyer.

On moving our assets

  • Contract terms: will not be a problem.
  • Trademarks: might take 4-6 years to transfer, so we should keep OSMF UK.
EU transparency register - Re-register OSMF


  • Can't give them a telephone number for OSMF.
  • Last time we registered, Guillaume provided his number.

Mateusz Konieczny

Attribution: To finish reviewing, find the worst offenders that are still in active operation


  • Underestimated the time need to review the entries for missing attribution, listed on the OSM wiki.
  • started attributing OSM this week.
  • A lot of websites disappeared in the meantime
Visualisation of OSMF finances
  • Trying to create a visualisation of OSMF finances, for fundraising and transparency reasons.
  • Need to do own review and processing of Xero data to prepare for publication.
Discussion on focusing on attribution action item

Brief discussion centered around Mateusz' current action items, which are primarily focused on attribution. Mateusz would like to prioritise the attribution-related action items and take potential next steps with one or two of the candidates who lacked attribution. The importance of attribution was stated, as a tool for raising awareness about OpenStreetMap and attracting new mappers.

Treasurer's report

Started to systematically chase down unpaid invoices, including:

  • an organisation which had not paid an invoice for USD 10,000 - currently being processed.
  • memberships in arrears.

Secretary's report

External enquiry related to attribution

  • Assigned to Mateusz.
  • Mateusz wants to consult with the board on whether to send the email as a person or as an OSMF Director. In the later case, he was not sure whether we should request attribution on the poster, as it will most likely be used in private.

On handling cases of missing attribution

  • If no prior communication with the entity lacking attribution was mentioned on the OSM wiki page, Mateusz sent a template email from his personal account.
  • Mateusz has selected two cases of no attribution and he proposes communicating as an OSMF representative with the two companies.

Suggestion: The board to discuss how the communication with the entities missing attribution would like and under what circumstances it is going to be done.

See also the later discussion and vote "Review of entries listed at "insufficient attribution" wiki page, taking potential next steps".

WikiMedia UK request to join a letter of supporting a position of online safety bill in UK

  • Assigned to Guillaume.
  • Paul from WikiMedia UK asked OSMF to join a letter supporting a position on the online safety bill in UK.

EU Cyber Resiliency Act

Dirk from Apache Foundation reached out about OSMF holding a position and joining in actions by open source groups to shape the EU Cyber Resiliency Act.

  • The Act aims to bring more rigour and standards to software released as products.
  • The process of software release may undergo standardisation or even require specific qualifications for participants, similar to manufacturing industries.
  • The intent is to make companies reliable for their products.

On current status of the Act

  • The commission has proposed the text for discussion to some people and the text might be changed.

The text will be sent to the parliament in September - it will be too late by then, because influencing within the parliament is really hard.

On open-source software

Open-source in the Act From the beginning there was an exception for open source in the text, but it was very restrictive, as you must not make any money with the it. E.g. if you get sponsoring via GitHub sponsors (as OSMF has), you're out.


  • The proposed regulations significantly differ from the current practices of open-source software development.
  • The Act could impose a substantial burden on both individual developers and larger commercial open-source projects.

Current actions

  • A group of open source software organisations is collaborating to advocate and lobby for changes in this policy.

Other points mentioned

  • The EU is unlikely to restrict the use of Linux as a server operating system.
  • The Act should not apply when publishing open-source software but when creating a product for sale, allowing more flexibility for non-commercial open-source projects.


Sarah talked to the person from who started to drive all this.

  • Direct implications are probably minor for OSMF, since we're not releasing our software as part of products, but for maintaining our own services.
  • We would want to support the things they are trying to do, as part of the open-source ecosystem.
  • Too late for OSMF to make a public statement.


  • Clearly communicate our financial model, which relies on memberships and recurring donations.
  • Getting more involved in policy matters might be a good idea.

OSM software

  • JOSM or iD probably won't have a problem because they're not financed at all.
  • More difficult for software like GraphHopper.
  • Our software is only in the not so important tier, which means you can self certify.

On signing collective letters

In addition to the EU Cyber Resiliency Act, there was another initiative where the OSMF was asked to sign a collective letter, which included organisations such as the Eclipse Foundation and the Linux Foundation. The letter has been published - OSMF did not sign it.

For EU policies

  • Signing collective letters has become challenging since the foundation is no longer in the EU, which means our influence has diminished.
  • Use of OSM data on the European Union websites gives us a standing to sign open letters addressed to European Union organisations.


  • work with the local chapters and local organisations in the EU.
  • Send a similar letter just by us, as letters with many signatures are usually treated as one complaint.
    • The board doesn't have the bandwidth.

Mateusz offered to help with the EU Cyber Resiliency Act by drafting a letter, as he has some experience working with governments.

Action item

  • Mateusz Konieczny to draft a letter about the EU Cyber Resiliency Act and share it with the board.

Engagement in policy committees

We received two requests this week to engage in policies:

1. Open Policy Alliance

  • The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has initiated an effort to educate policymakers about how open-source functions.
  • We received an invitation due to our affiliation with OSI.
  • Workload: we have the option to have low involvement.
  • OSI's focus is on policies within the United States.

They had mentioned they would like us to:

  • Make an initial announcement about the new initiative, stating our membership in it.
  • Provide our logo and name for inclusion, after which we will sign the letter.

by June 19th (the email was received eight days after it was said to be sent).

2. Public Policy Council for Open Source Foundations

  • Organised by Open Forum Europe (OFE).
  • OFE is focused on EU based policy.

Points mentioned during discussion

  • It would be beneficial to have a presence in both networks, as they would keep us updated on the broader policy landscape.
  • Our obligation would primarily involve passive observation and listening.
  • There are at least ten legislative efforts in the EU that impact software-related matters.

On joining both initiatives

  • The Open Policy Alliance is a little more formalized at this point.

Suggestion: Say that we'd like to join.

On documentation:

  • Documents from OSI are in Git.
  • Mikel can forward the documents he received.

Craig Allan was experiencing network connectivity problems and messaged that he anticipates power rationing within the next 15 minutes.

Vote: Motion to join both initiatives 1) Open Policy Alliance and 2) Public Policy Council for Open Source Foundations

Motion to join both initiatives 1) Open Policy Alliance and 2) Public Policy Council for Open Source Foundations.

Approved on 2023-06-29 with 3 votes in favour: Sarah Hoffmann, Guillaume Rischard, Mikel Maron.
3 abstained: Arnalie Vicario, Craig Allan (because he missed the discussion due to network issues), Mateusz Konieczny.
1 did not vote: Roland Olbricht (absent)

Local Chapters and Community updates

Local Chapter (LC) annual reports collection + write up

  • We have collected 14 out of 18 local chapter reports for 2021/2022.
  • Arnalie will draft a blog post highlighting one activity or accomplishment from each Local Chapter (LC) to enhance their visibility.
  • LC financial reports: will be left to be handled by the Secretary and Treasurer.

Sharing draft Local Chapter application redesign '(including criteria + evaluation/approval) for community consultation

  • The Local Chapters and Communities Working Group (LCCWG) agreed to prioritise and significantly contribute to the review of LC applications.
  • The LCCWG aims to address comments within the next two weeks to prepare the draft for community consultation.
  • LCCWG meeting on the 5th of July 2023 - Craig Allan and Roland Olbricht were invited, other board members can also join.

Improving Affiliation Models (discuss at Local Chapter Congress or State of the Map regional)

  • LCCWG is deprioritising the improvement of affiliation models for now.
  • The topic will be addressed at this year's Local Chapters and Communities Congress.

On Local Chapters and Communities Congress: online event and we will be submitting proposals for in person attendance of board members at regional state of the Maps, such as Oceania, EU, Asia and Africa.

Microgrants (follow up on funds / from fundraising?)


  • had requested funding for Microgrants.
  • would like the board to consider if funding for Microgrants can be part of the fundraising campaign. The LCCWG is open to discussing this with the board.

Suggestion: the LCCWG to send a proposal to the board regarding Microgrants.

OSM landing page and website redesign

  • The LCCWG would like to update the communities page and and is gathering the updates they wish to implement.
  • Suggestion: Considering the board's plan to update pages like, a special committee could be tasked with redesigning the website as a whole.

Trails Engagement

No updates.

SotM US community "Birds of a Feather" session

  • A spontaneous session took place during State of the Map US 2023, attended by people from Africa, EU, US.
  • Questions were raised about whether we are limiting local chapters' ability to generate funds and sustain themselves.

Suggestions stated during that session:

  • Providing more context and more localized guidelines for the local chapters process and application.
  • Supporting local chapters and communities with financial incentives, grants, and partnerships.

Update to Corporate Membership tiers

Mikel submitted a proposal to the board, outlining the rationale and potential changes we can make to the corporate membership tiers at a high level.

The corporate membership tiers:

  • Were established 6 years ago.
  • They no longer represent our financial needs or the level of support we should expect.
  • Only recently we welcomed our first Corporate Member at the highest tier (Platinum - TomTom).


  • The alignment of corporate membership tiers with their respective benefits has always been somewhat unclear.

Suggested changes

  • Increase the financial contributions for all levels, making them more dependent on the size of the organisation (e.g., revenue, number of employees, or a different metric).
  • Open up the Advisory Board optional membership to Silver and Bronze Corporate Members, as their insights would be valuable. (Note: currently only Gold and Platinum Corporate Members can have representatives on the Advisory Board)

Other points mentioned

  • The suggested changes have been discussed on the Advisory Board and other venues.
  • As the proposed text was sent to the board yesterday, it would be premature to have a vote now.

Next steps

  • Get feedback from the board over the next couple of weeks.
  • Approve the changes through a circular resolution or during the upcoming board meeting.

Comment by Courtney Williamson (2023 fundraiser) on the board chat that at the bottom of the document shared within the board there is a summary of her notes, which reflect previous conversations with the board and the fundraising committee.

Support as financial intermediary to regional State of the Map sponsorships

The suggestion for OSMF to act as financial intermediary to support regional State of the Map sponsorships was made in response to:

  • local event organisers: face challenges in navigating the procurement systems of sponsors.
  • sponsors: find it complex to facilitate the sponsorship process and handle payments.
  • specific case: the board has an immediate request for this support for SotM EU 2023.

Suggestion: the OSMF to handle the receipt and distribution of funds from larger sponsors to a selection of local events.

This initiative will be integrated into the overall fundraising efforts of the foundation, involving both SotM sponsorships, Corporate Membership, and participation in donation campaigns.

There would be one distribution for all OSMF-related provision of funds, including Corporate Membership, international SotM sponsorship, and sponsorships for local SotMs. We'd have an agreement of what portion is going to local State of the Map events. Subsequently, event organisers would provide us with an invoice for the agreed sponsorship amount, which OSMF would then pay to them.

Set of criteria for evaluation of support requests

Local event organisers have to:

  • Have approval of using our trademarks for a local SotM event, via a SotM quick licence request or by being a Local Chapter.
  • Be an entity with a bank account capable of receiving funds from OSMF - not an individual.
  • Provide financial disclosure after the event.
  • Additionally, the timelines for funding should align with our funders budgeting cycles, as well as with our request.

Regional sponsors have to:

  • Be OSMF Corporate Members.
  • Sponsor the international SotM, organised by OSMF.
  • Already have OSMF listed in their procurement systems.

OSMF should

  • Implement checks to ensure proper handling of funds.

Open questions

  • Tax burden - getting mix responses even from the same people.
  • Considering a small overhead fee to cover administrative burdens in processing transactions.
  • Finalising the exact process.


  • Tax implications for organisers of local SotMs.
    • They may face issues if they don't have matching invoices for their sponsorships.
    • That sounds like a contractual issue that can be solved.
    • Need a proper system in place before negotiating contracts.


  • Check whether the process would be ok tax-wise for the local SotM organisers.
  • Prepare clear standard contracts for the sponsors and the event organisers.

Other point mentioned during discussion:

  • In general the proposal is very constrained, so it's fine.

Action item

Mikel Maron to have a draft standard contract ready by the next board meeting.

Review of entries listed at "insufficient attribution" wiki page, taking potential next steps

Two cases of missing attribution, selected by Mateusz:

  • They are listed on the OSM wiki.
  • They have no attribution at all.
  • They have been notified in the past about missing attribution.
  • They have postal addresses.
  • They are companies.


  • Mateusz to draft and send to the entities above a paper letter on behalf of OSMF, asking them to start attributing OSM.
  • The letter to be signed by another board member, as Mateusz signature is not good.
    • The letter can be signed by Mateusz, or have no signature at all, or even be an email.
  • Mateusz to check with the Licensing Working Group (LWG) on the "love letters" they have prepared (template letter to be sent to entities with insufficient OSM attribution).
  • The Operations Working Group (OWG) to block their usage of tiles, after sending the letter.
    • The companies have already been contacted that they're missing attribution.

Vote: ask OWG to block the tile usage for these two sites which lack OSM attribution

Motion to ask OWG to block the tile usage for these two sites which lack OSM attribution:

Approved on 2023-06-29 with 3 votes in favour: Craig Allan, Guillaume Rischard, Mateusz Konieczny
3 abstained: Arnalie Vicario, Mikel Maron, Sarah Hoffmann.
1 did not vote (absent): Roland Olbricht

Action items

  • Guillaume Rischard to ask the OWG to block these two entities.
  • Mateusz Konieczny to provide a draft letter at the next board meeting.

Earmark a budget of 33000 EUR for a vector tile rendering stack such that tiles can be re-rendered minutely

"Earmark a budget of 33000 EUR for a vector tile rendering stack such that tiles can be re-rendered minutely (the same fashion as now with Mapnik). The tiles shall allow for substantial flexibility for styles while still being performant."

Circular being open for voting during and after the meeting: 2023/Res15 Vector tile plan funding

Overview provided

  • In the 2021 OSMF survey the question of whether to implement vector tiles received mixed responses. Answers varied from leaving it to open source efforts to paying for it but avoiding competition with commercial producers.
  • We have encouraged other open projects to create machines which create Vector Tiles.
  • Nothing exists that can produce minutely-updated vector tiles, that we could use on
  • Updating the map immediately on is a significant aspect of mapping, as it incentivises users to contribute more frequently due to the immediate "reward."

Some OSM community members think the Board should fund change of the map displayed on from raster tiles to vector tiles. bearing in mind the potential cost of such an undertaking, and the possible impact on the OSM ecosystem, in your opinion the Board should:

  • do nothing in this regarding.
  • encourage volunteers to create vector tiles for, but nothing more.
  • pay developers to create vector tiles for but in a manner calculated not to compete with commercial developers.
  • pay developers to create vector tiles calculated to demonstrate the full breadth of OSM data.
  • no opinion

Background on this issue (in the survey):
Summary report on OSMF Chair's outreach Jan-early ap 2020 (apm-wa diary entry, scroll to "Vector Tiles"):
What OpenStreetMap can be (blogpost by systemed):

On the 2021 survey

  • The 2021 survey is not very representative.
    • That was the widest outreach we ever did.
    • Not perfect, but best snapshot we have of the OSM community.
    • It showed under-representation in many parts, but we can say with a lot of confidence that there is under-representation in the OSM community as a whole and not under-representation in the survey.
    • The answer was mixed. There was partial support to do nothing and let others work on Vector Tiles, which is what has happened.
  • The enthusiasm of SotM 2022 participants is not representative of the community.

On specific Vector Tiles project

  • Paul Norman (OWG volunteer) wants to work on a Vector Tiles project and the board has not been great at responding to him.
  • Guillaume had asked Paul to come up with a formal specification for the project but Paul didn't want to invest time into something where the OSMF has been unresponsive in the past.
  • 30K is Paul's estimate for the whole budget.
  • Suggestion: start with the formal specification, so we know what we will be getting for the 30K.

Motion to earmark EUR 33,000 from existing OSMF funds for a Vector Tile rendering stack that will allow tiles to be rendered minutely on the website.
- It would not mean that we would do the project completely. We would start with the spec, have a formal plan and decide whether to do it.
- Would prefer not to come to the board every time the budget changes, so would like to earmark the whole EUR 33,000.
- If we approve the whole budget, the circular becomes obsolete.


  • What we have at the moment is insufficient for specification, as it doesn't describe what Vector Tiles are or how the work.
  • Process: It is highly unusual to pay someone to write an application for funding. One usually puts the estimate for the money in the funding plan.
  • Remit: This is in the remit of EWG, and we have a budget for the EWG.
    • That was part of the discussion that Guillaume Rischard (OSMF chairperson) and Roland Olbricht (OSMF Treasurer) had separately and with Paul Norman. They were concerned this would be too large for the EWG budget (which is around EUR 50,000).
    • Roland (speaking for EWG and as relayed by Guillaume) feels that the project does not belong there. The work that needs to happen is not the work EWG typically does.
    • OWG has seen the project and seem to like it.
    • It is not unusual for the board to fund projects directly.
  • Not a time-sensitive issue.
    • Not needs to happen this week, but we have been discussing this for a while and the board has known for a while.


  • Approve funds for developing a proposal based on Guillaume's outline. Then, once we have the proposal, approve both the plan and funds together.
    • There's no value of approving the funds ahead of the proposal.
  • Allocate EUR 2,000 for developing the plan. Once we have it, we can make decisions on the plan and its associated costs.
  • It must be very clear that approved funds are intended for the specification and development of a product based on that specification.
  • The Engineering Working Group (EWG) to look at this - it is unnecessary to look at this as the board.
  • Restrict the funds to the EUR 2,000 for the proposal.
  • Communicate the significance of vector tiles to the community.

Question by Imagico (guest) via text on whether the board can clarify if they are talking about tile *rendering* or tile *serving* (or both).

> Both.

On how much work (in days or hours) is estimated for the proposal

  • Paul estimates the proposal is 2 days of work.
  • This rate is usual for this kind of work, especially as an external.
  • It is not the most expensive rate we have paid.

Vote: amend the motion to approve EUR 2,000 for development of a full proposal for a vector tile rendering stack

Proposal to amend the motion to approve EUR 2,000 for development of a full proposal for a vector tile rendering stack.

Approved on 2023-06-29 with 3 votes in favour: Craig Allan, Guillaume Rischard, Mikel Maron
2 against: Arnalie Vicario, Sarah Hoffmann.
1 abstained: Mateusz Konieczny.
1 did not vote (absent): Roland Olbricht

Vote: earmark a budget of EUR 2,000 for a Vector Tile rendering stack proposal by Paul Norman

Earmark a budget of EUR 2,000 for a Vector Tile rendering stack proposal by Paul Norman.

Approved on 2023-06-29 with 3 votes in favour: Craig Allan, Guillaume Rischard, Mikel Maron
2 against: Arnalie Vicario, Sarah Hoffmann.
1 abstained: Mateusz Konieczny.
1 did not vote (absent): Roland Olbricht

There was a brief discussion during Mateusz' turn to vote on the main motion, on the votes so far and whether his vote would change the outcome.

Monthly presentation - OSM Cuba community

Presentation about the OSM Cuba community by Elier.

Questions and answers

Question by Guillaume Rischard (board): Since the Internet is expensive in Cuba and limited if people get their maps as part of the El Paquete Semanal, and if other ways of distributing maps offline would be useful for the Cuba community.

  • Not so expensive but the value of the money is less due to inflation.
  • Cubans use apps such as OsmAND and as there are offline maps.
  • Paquete is a hard drive with TV series and movies.
  • Maps are not in the Paquete.

Question by Guillaume Rischard (board): Have you heard of Organic Maps, a newer fork of

> No

Question by Arnalie Vicario (board): Which areas of support or collaboration would you like OSM Foundation to help/discuss with to further you activities in Cuba?

> Best help to Cuba is to promote the OSM culture. Because people use OsmAND but they don't know where the maps come from or the organisation and people working behind everything.

Any other business

Travel policy

Arnalie and Craig to take the topic forward.

Guest comments or questions


Next meetings

  • 2023-07-13, 1500 UTC (Mid-month board chat)
  • 2023-07-27, 1500 UTC (Public board meeting) - Agenda

Open board meetings take place online once a month.

See the Monthly Board meetings page to find out where board meetings are announced and for a subscription link to have future board meetings automatically added to your calendar.