Working Group Minutes/MWG 2017-12-07

From OpenStreetMap Foundation


  • Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
  • Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
  • Mohamat Lamine (Lamine_Ndiaye)
  • Jonathan Witcoski (jonwit)
  • Joost Schouppe (joost_schouppe)

Open issues

  • E-Mail rejected as spam on
  • Member self service area
  • Membership fee waiver program

Last minutes

The last minuets are unanimously accepted.

New member

Joost Schouppe is accepted as a new member of the MWG.

Fee waiver program

Joost did a nice summary of the discussions on the mailing list. The proposal is submitted to the board.

Some payments missing

There were a few requests where the payment with paypal was successful, but the payment was not recorded with civicrm. We do not know why this happens, although it happens rarely fortunately. We will accept the receipt of paypal as proof of payment. Further it is possible to check with the treasurer if the payment is available in paypal where the MWG does not have access. This can be done occasionally.

Request for an opt in published member list

Michael will create a proposal to optionally show OSMF membership on the user page.


20:16 < datendelphin> First point on the agenda would be accepting the minutes of the last meeting
20:16 < datendelphin> found here
20:17  * Steve__ approves minutes
20:17 < jonwit> i approve of old minutes
20:17 < joost_schouppe> I have no idea how irc works, but I approve too :) 
20:18 < Lamine_Ndiaye> Hello everyone
20:18 < datendelphin> yes that is mainly how it works :) As you see in the old minutes, we copy paste just the chat log and then produce a short summary
20:19 < datendelphin> Hi Lamine_Ndiaye
20:20 < datendelphin> Then I would like to propose joost_schouppe as a new member of the MWG
20:21 < datendelphin> He has already done very welcome work on the fee waiver program
20:21 < Lamine_Ndiaye> Welcome tout joost_schouppe
20:21 < joost_schouppe> Thanks! 
20:21 < jonwit> Welcome to the MWG 
20:22 < Steve__> happy welcome!
20:23 < datendelphin> Awesome. SO I will try to get in touch with pnorman to add you to the mwg mail distribution, and will send you the, um, paperwork that you can have access to member re
20:23 < jonwit> As I recall in order to get access to the membership rolls and program to asset with emails you must sign a non-disclosure agreement joost_schouppe
20:25 < joost_schouppe> Okay, I'll sign whatever needed. But not urgent for me
20:26 -!- Lamine_Ndiaye [~oftc-webi@] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
20:26 < joost_schouppe> Got the mail, thanks
20:26 < datendelphin> good, so let's go forward to the fee waiver program
20:27 < Steve__> waive ALL the fees!
20:27 < datendelphin> Thanks joost_schouppe for the nice summary.
20:29 < datendelphin> So should we just include the 10% clause or forward it as it is for approval to the board?
20:29 < Steve__> when I read the 10% thing it struck me as really high. How many members are in OSMF right now (roughtly) ?
20:29 < Steve__> that's a first impression without really thinking about it.
20:30 < jonwit> I like the 10% rule however I think that clause is unneeded since we don't know how many people will sign up for it
20:30 < joost_schouppe> It's very high, so it doesn't matter much if we add it, and it helps with some concerns
20:30 < Steve__> "The board and/or MWG reserves the right to limit participation to a practical limit" ?
20:31 < Steve__> I'm fine not to encourage a stampede
20:31 < jonwit> I prefer that since each fee waived member needs to be voted on in some way by the board
20:31 < datendelphin> Steve__:
20:32 < Steve__> I don't think we expect a stampede, but in any case, if we get people in underserved areas (which are probably isolated not just due to banking issues), that's a good thing
 whether they pay or not.
20:32 -!- Steve__ is now known as SJFriedl
20:32 < SJFriedl> got my name back
20:33 < joost_schouppe> I didn't see anything about individual board approval? 
20:34 < SJFriedl> I'd like to see a "No Pokemon Go players" clause :-)
20:35 < SJFriedl> I absolutely do not believe we should get the board involved in individual approvals.
20:35 < SJFriedl> that's what working groups are for.
20:35 < datendelphin> I think there will be very few, because we currently will only allow people who are unable to pay by paypal
20:36 < datendelphin> that is essentially only a handful of nations world wide
20:36 < SJFriedl> I thought there was another circumstance where paypal was available, but it required a bank account that was expensive or something?
20:36 < datendelphin> So I also think that no limit is necessary
20:36 < jonwit> banking fees are more expensive than the membership fee i believe
20:36 < SJFriedl> that's it.
20:38 < joost_schouppe> Ok, so should we define more specifically what is lack of practical means? I thought it just said "no PayPal available" 
20:38 < datendelphin> Yes, jonwit and SJFriedl you are both right. But that is not part of the current proposal
20:38 < joost_schouppe> Nevermind my question then, back to the proposal 
20:39 < jonwit> the text states: the regular membership fee, may be waived if paying the fee would constitute an unreasonable burden to the member, either because of financial hardship or because of the lack of a suitable money transfer facility.
20:39 < datendelphin> solving those two problems is a lot harder, thats why we wanted to start with something simple
20:39 < SJFriedl> fair enough.  Paypal is a fair proxy for a first effort.
20:41 < SJFriedl> I'm looking for the actual current working text...?
20:41 < joost_schouppe> Jonwit, that's not what I see in the thing discussed on OSMF talk 
20:41 < datendelphin>
20:41 < jonwit> i copied it from the annual meeting text
20:42 < datendelphin> jonwit: that is our basis, not our implementation
20:42 < datendelphin> the implementation is the mail I posted the link to above
20:42 < SJFriedl> so we were going to drop #3, "something of value"
20:42 < jonwit> sorry for the confusion 
20:43 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: no, the active contributor requirement is based on that requirement
20:44 < SJFriedl> Ohhh.  Sorry, I'm slow ti keep up today.
20:44 < datendelphin> no problem :)
20:44 < datendelphin> So who thinks we should stick to the text proposed on the osmf talk list, and who thinks we need to further refine it?
20:44 < datendelphin> I vot for the proposed text
20:45 < datendelphin> I vote for the proposed text
20:45 < SJFriedl> DDuhy, I was looiking at the annual meeting thing.  
20:45 < SJFriedl> This looks great. I approve
20:46 < jonwit> being the devils advocate how would we approach an individual who does not add changes to the map but still contributes in their own way (i.e. organizing meetings) 
20:46 < SJFriedl> as a later step.
20:46 < SJFriedl> I think the feeling was that being objective has its own value.
20:46 < SJFriedl> otherwise then it's "is that enough?"
20:46 < datendelphin> we tell him to edit the map. The requirement is really small after all
20:46 < SJFriedl> (amongst us)
20:47 < SJFriedl> they should be going that anyway, no?
20:47 < joost_schouppe> Agree, this is simple, easy and honest
20:47 < jonwit> i approve of the proposed text. 
20:47 < SJFriedl> unless they're running for OSM board ;-)
20:48 < joost_schouppe> I would like to add the 10% limit, but I also accept the proposal of we don't add it
20:49 < datendelphin> I would leave it for now.
20:49 < joost_schouppe> Not because I think it's necessary, just to give people peace of mind
20:49 < SJFriedl> I think we can always propose an alteration if it comes to that.
20:50 < jonwit> i dont think we are going to be overrun with requests from individuals in developing countries without paypal, and even if we do it will offset us americans and europeans 
20:50 < datendelphin> Yes. So may we task joost_schouppe to approach the board with our proposal?
20:51 < joost_schouppe> Ok, I approve of the text
20:51 < datendelphin> In the end, the board could also ask for such a clause to be added
20:51 < joost_schouppe> And I'll pass it on to the board :) 
20:52 < SJFriedl> I agree with jonwit: genuine applications are welcome whether they pay or not.
20:54 < datendelphin> Oh and joost_schouppe if you further persue the topic of the waiver, Lamine_Ndiaye can tell you of his situation in Senegal. I found that very interesting (can be read in the past minutes)
20:54 < datendelphin> So Next topic is the membership drive?
20:55 < SJFriedl> Waiving all the fees might help with that too :-)
20:55 < joost_schouppe> (yes, I will absolutely do that. This is just a first step, but glad we're finally taking it!) 
20:57 < datendelphin> You have probably seen the small statistic I posted about the drive.
20:57 < jonwit> i copied the statistic from the osmf mail:  5 Sweden (2%)  13 United Kingdom (5%)  14 India (5%)  24 Germany (9%) 146 United States (56%)  This is from a total of 263 members who joined in October or November. By continent:  Africa 4 (2%) Asia 29 (11%) Europe 65 (25%) North America 150 (57%) Oceania 6 (2%) South America 9 (3%)
20:58 < datendelphin> Unfortunately, the MWG was only little involved in the drive. I think it is a good idea, but I would apreciate it if it was done from within the MWG next time.
20:58 < SJFriedl> how would we do it differently?
20:58 < SJFriedl> isn't this as much about communications as anything else?
20:59 < SJFriedl> not objecting, just asking
20:59 < jonwit> great job compiling the stats! I really dont understand how we could contribute with the membership drive thou.
21:00 < datendelphin> For example with a date a bit more spaced out before the annual meeting :)
21:04 < datendelphin> ok, no further action required
21:05 < datendelphin> Those who already were on the mwg list saw it, we had a few payments which mysteriously went missing
21:06 < SJFriedl> have you checked under the cusions on your couch?
21:06 < datendelphin> We need to inquire with the treasurer in such cases, because we have no access to paypal
21:06 < datendelphin> I even check below the couch. But no luck
21:08 < datendelphin> Is it ok if we accept the receipt (pdf sent by member)?
21:09 < SJFriedl> why not accept provisionally so they can be involved while we sort it out?
21:09 < SJFriedl> until and unless that we find out we've been gamed, we should assume this is an administrative thing that the member is not responsible for.
21:10 < datendelphin> That's what I did. I renewed them manually and just afterwards sent the receipt to our treasurer for verification
21:10 < SJFriedl> great.
21:11 < datendelphin> But I have no idea how that comes and what we could do against it
21:11 < joost_schouppe> (Sorry, I have to take a drive now. Will have a look here again in about 45 min) 
21:12 < datendelphin> The only lead I have is that they paid with a paypal account in a differen email than what they used to register with osmf
21:12 < datendelphin> ok, thanks joost_schouppe 
21:12 < datendelphin> hopefully we will be done by then
21:12 < jonwit> thanks for joining, welcome to the team
21:12 < datendelphin> have a safe trip
21:13 < datendelphin> ok then in absence of good ideas, lets move on to the last topic
21:13 < SJFriedl> see ya!
21:14 < datendelphin> One member requested that he is shown on a public list of OSMF members. I think we could do this, though I don't know if there would be more members interested in that
21:15 < SJFriedl> Associate members do not have to reveal their address, right?
21:15 < datendelphin> Yes
21:16 < datendelphin> But we are talking about an optional, but public by default list
21:17 < datendelphin> so now you can request a membership list if you are a member, or the list of normal members if *company act reasons*
21:17 < jonwit> so there was a request that the membership roster be published. didn't the website that publishes user stats just hide that information due to privacy reasons
21:17 < SJFriedl> are we talking about usernames, usernames + real names, user + real + country, address, what?
21:17 < SJFriedl> this is a transparency thing, right?
21:18 < datendelphin> No he requested that his OWN name be puplished as a certified member
21:18 < SJFriedl> Oh. To prove professional association.
21:18 < datendelphin> not all members, but his own name
21:18 < datendelphin> yes to have a place to show people: look, I'm a member of OSMF
21:19 < SJFriedl> why not have a checkbox on membersihp, [X] make my membership public on <list>
21:19 < SJFriedl> default to off for everybody (so no surprises), but people can opt in.
21:19 < SJFriedl> or default = opt in for new members, but opt out default for prior?
21:20 < datendelphin> I just have no idea how many would like to be on such a list.
21:20 < datendelphin> I would say definitely opt-in
21:20 < SJFriedl> I would be proud to be listed.
21:20 < datendelphin> with a big warning
21:21 < jonwit> I would have no problem with being listed however most people here can be spooked by having their name up on the internet
21:21 < datendelphin> good :) personally, I'm already on too many lists, would not want that.
21:21 < datendelphin> yes jonwit I think so too.
21:23 < datendelphin> So should we persue that? And if yes who would volunteer to see it through?
21:23 < jonwit> I think a commemorative membership card that can be printed out would be a better alternative and would ruffle less feathers 
21:24 < SJFriedl> Is the prompting for this literally one person's request?
21:26 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: yes. Are you not on the mwg list? 
21:26 < SJFriedl> I am but have been very distracted lately with some health issues.
21:27 < jonwit> ive been bombarded with mailing list emails as well from the election and what not
21:27 < datendelphin> well filter the osmf-talk and look at the mwg mails :)
21:28 < datendelphin> I'm searching for the mail right now to point you to it
21:29 < datendelphin> The mail was on Nov. 2nd. I will not write the name because this is irc
21:29 < datendelphin> but I can forward it if you would like
21:31 < datendelphin> found? or should I forward?
21:31 < SJFriedl> I have 10k messages in my mailbox and filtering is a challenge for me.
21:32 < jonwit> i did not find it but no need to forward i believe you
21:32 < SJFriedl> I believe you too :-)
21:33 < datendelphin> ok, so what should we do?
21:33 < jonwit> So our options are to 1. ignore the request as it is only one person, 2, submit a proposal to the board to list all members, or 3. propose an alternative?
21:34 < datendelphin> 2) would be a proposal for an opt-in public list of members
21:34 < datendelphin> yes
21:34 < SJFriedl> I don't like the idea of a list just for this idea.  If somebody proposes an idea and we're all: why exactly does somebody want this? you might not have a killer idea.
21:35 < SJFriedl> what if this were optionally shown in your OSM profile?
21:35 < SJFriedl> or is there not that kind of linkage?
21:35 < datendelphin> SJFriedl: could be possible, we ask for the osm name
21:35 < jonwit> i dont believe you osm account is tied to your osmf membership in any way
21:35 < datendelphin> but that would need some serious implementation
21:35 < SJFriedl> ok, then that's too much work as wll.
21:36 < jonwit> your osmf account is only tied to your email address 
21:36 < SJFriedl> so I guess we don't know: does he need one-time verification for some work certification thing, or does he want to ongoingly point to "Look at me! I'm OSMF"?
21:36 < datendelphin> actually, I would prefer that one. But we would need help to implement it
21:37 < datendelphin> ok, you know what? I will pick it up. I will make a proposal to optionally show OSMF membership on the user page.
21:38 < jonwit> I will agree to a opt-in public list of members not an opt-out. 
21:40 < datendelphin> ok, any other business?
21:41 < jonwit> I dont have any
21:42 < datendelphin> ok, thank you all