Working Group Minutes/MWG 2020-01-19

From OpenStreetMap Foundation

Participants

  • Steve Friedl (SJFriedl)
  • Michael Spreng (datendelphin)
  • Thomas Barris (Thomas)
  • Paul Norman (pnorman)
  • Guillaume Rischard (Stereo)
  • Joost Schouppe (joost_schouppe[m])

Open issues

  • Member self service area
  • Membership fee waiver program
  • OSMF membership badge on openstreetmap.org pull request
  • Improving the Membership Working Group page.
  • membership fee by bitcoin

Vote by mail - fee-waiver country Nepal - 19.10.2019

Thomas did some research, which showed that , despite claims by Paypal to operate in Nepal, that service is in no practicable way available to Nepal citizens. The issue being that it seems impossible for someone living in Nepal to obtain a compatible US credit card.

After e-mail discussion, the following vote was held by mail:

  1. Accept Nepal as another country for the fee-waiver for lack of suitable money transfer Unanimously accepted with  6 yes
  2. We require people from Nepal to instead donate the membership fee to a Nepalese charity, which we will specify. Rejected with 2 yes, 1 abstain and 3 no

Nepal was consequently added to the list of eligible countries for lack of suitable money transfer.

Previous minutes

accepted with 3 approve, 2 abstain

implementation of new Fee waiver for mappers/contributors

We arrived at following proposal:

A person is automatically qualified for a fee waiver if: - They have mapped for at least 30 days within the last year - AND they have mapped during at least three months within the last year - AND they were not paid for these mapping activities

A person who has made other significant contributions to the OpenStreetMap project in the last year may also apply to the Board for a fee waiver.

Approved with Unanimous with one partial abstention (pnorman abstained on the paid mapping part)

Paul and Guillaume will do member contribution histograms to see whether 30 days is a good threshold.

Framing of fee waiver

The phrase "Fee waiver" sounds like it is an exception. But actually the rationale is: Everyone who is an active contributor (see sizeable contribution) should participate in the OSMF. Because the OSMF should serve the mappers, every active contributor should help steer the OSMF in the right direction. Therefore I propose to use "active contributor member" when communicating about the program, for example on join.osmfoundation.org, as a better phrase for this type of membership.

Michael Spreng (datendelphin) leaves the meeting.

Vote on renaming 'fee waiver' to 'active contributor membership': approved unanimously.

AOB

Discussion about 'skin in the game' thresholds for new memberships.

Resolution approved unanimously: MWG is in favour of ensuring skin in the game for memberships. For the next month or until next meeting, whichever comes first, we will, as much as we can with the information we're given, check whether new regular or associate members meet the active contributor membership thresholds. MWG will notify the Board of new memberships that don't meet the thresholds for manual approval or rejection. At the end of that trial period, MWG will produce an evaluation, suggest possible methods for ensuring skin in the game in new members, and attempt to predict their impact.

Full Transcript

This meeting took place on the #osmf-membership channel on the OFTC IRC server. 

19:55 < datendelphin> reviewed the last minutes? https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2019-09-30
19:55  * SJFriedl has and approves
19:55 < Thomas> yep, fine with it
19:56 <@Stereo> Hi everyone :)
19:56 < datendelphin> Hi Stereo
19:56 < Thomas> Hi
20:00 <@Stereo> The bells here just went bong eight times
20:00 < datendelphin> I think everyone is here who filled out the doodle
20:00 <@Stereo> joost_schouppe[m]: are you joining us?
20:02 <@Stereo> Guess not :)
20:02 <@Stereo> datendelphin: would you like to start and remind us of the agenda today?
20:03 < datendelphin> Agenda:
20:03 < datendelphin> 1. Previous minutes
20:03 < datendelphin> 2. implementation of new Fee waiver for mappers/contributors
20:03 < datendelphin> maybe 3. Framing of fee waiver
20:04 < datendelphin> Everyone approves the minutes?
20:04  * SJFriedl does
20:04 < Thomas> yes
20:04 < datendelphin> by the way, live reporting at https://pads.ccc.de/bRJhDQI3Vg
20:04 <@Stereo> Abstain, wasn't there
20:05 <@Stereo> If we have some time and courage, we could discuss the civicrm changes we'd like to do
20:05 < pnorman> Abstain, wasn't there
20:05 <@Stereo> You talked about the member self-service area last time, I see. That could go together.
20:06 < datendelphin> I approve as well. So 3  approve, 2 abstain
20:06 <@Stereo> And then we should talk about something that's been mentioned on the board, and maybe come up with a proposal for the board if we feel like it: setting a minimum mapping contribution for users to become members
20:07 < datendelphin> Well that shoud fit under 2. At least that was my intention
20:07 <@Stereo> Hmm it'd be even for paying members
20:07 < SJFriedl> is this intended to fend off takeovers?
20:08 < datendelphin> Ah I see. well then let's add this to AOB at the end
20:08 <@Stereo> Yeah, or at least help make them harder, by requiring skin in the game
20:08 <@Stereo> Ok
20:08 <@Stereo> Thank you
20:09 < datendelphin> Just to recap. The new fee waiver is intended to be independent on any hardship or missing money transfer facilities
20:10 < datendelphin> But it requires skin in the game as Stereo has called it nicely
20:11 <@Stereo> So there's four ways to get a membership: I'm paying / I can't transfer money / I can't afford it / I contribute a lot
20:11 < datendelphin> No, not as I understand it.
20:11 <@Stereo> The last three being fee waivers
20:11 <@Stereo> No?
20:11 < Thomas> how much is "a lot"? i.e. what percentage of contributors we are think should it cover
20:11 < datendelphin> As I understand it, we can drop I can't transfer money / I can't afford it
20:12 < pnorman> both 2 and 3 require I contribute - we could look at using different thresholds for them vs the new one, but they all require contributions
20:12 <@Stereo> And I just improved the hardship form :)
20:12 < SJFriedl> I do not believe there is any way to achieve this without a great deal of discretion on the part of MWG and/or the board.
20:12 < datendelphin> What "a lot" are you referring to Thomas?
20:13 <@Stereo> I think 'a lot' is the 'I contribute a lot' I mentioned.
20:13 < Thomas> "I contribute a lot"
20:13 < Thomas> the no. 4
20:14 <@Stereo> So we're saying we restrict it to people who contribute a lot, no matter where they're from or how broke they are?
20:14 < Thomas> with "how broke they are" don you mean me ;)
20:15 < datendelphin> That will be up to us/the board to define. But given the extremely fast decaying curve of contributions, it will not be too sensitive.
20:15 <@Stereo> How do you mean decaying curve?
20:16 < datendelphin> Well if you plot contributors against their contributions (ordered by their contribution amount) you get the classical "long tail" graph
20:18 < datendelphin> which means most of the map is contributed by the top percent
20:18 <@Stereo> So what you're suggesting: if you've mapped x days in the last year, you can become a member right away if you pay the fee. If you've mapped y days in the last year, you can pay the fee or ask for a fee waiver. If you've made another significant contribution that's not mapping itself, apply for membership, explain what you've done, and the board will let you know if you qualify for a membership 
20:18 <@Stereo> and/or a waiver?
20:20 < pnorman> it would be qualify for a waiver. If someone pays for a membership, they get in unless the board explicitly decides to reject
20:21 < datendelphin> I would shift to something more sofisticated that x days in a year. But yes that's it for the fee-waiver
20:21 <@Stereo> What the board is talking about these days is having some kind of threshold to be let in in any case. No decision yet, but that's because it wasn't fully baked at the last board meeting - I felt there was consensus on the principle.
20:22 <@Stereo> x days per year is easy to measure, but we can always change the threshold if something else becomes easy.
20:22 < SJFriedl> Isn't this indirectly saying that you'll have to be a real mapper to be on the board?
20:22 < datendelphin> and for other types of contributions, if there is something we can do to codify it, we can accept them without the board. I would like to defer all the subjective decisions to the board
20:22 < pnorman> My reading of the AoA is that it requires an explicit decision to reject someone once their payment has cleared
20:23 <@Stereo> No; you can always apply to the board to be let in on other reasons, for example if you organise SotMs or contribute to software
20:23 < pnorman> But I don't think this is the time to discuss adding membership requirements, we're on a different agenda item right now
20:24 <@Stereo> Yeah, let's discuss membership requirements later
20:25 < datendelphin> So I did some experiments. I used jochens tool to import history data, and wrote a few simple queries
20:25 < datendelphin> like give me all addr:housnumber of that user, or all ways with a highway tag
20:26 < datendelphin> Not yet experimented: verify that the user actually added or changed that attribute.
20:27 < pnorman> I'm in favour of something that is simple to understand and evaluate
20:27 <@Stereo> Same as Paul, but I'm curious to hear the results of the experiments :)
20:28 < datendelphin> but isn't mapping days too prone for gaming the system?
20:28 < Thomas> no
20:28 < Thomas> it is heardest to fake
20:28 < Thomas> you can move 1000 nodes in a minute
20:28 < datendelphin> just write a bot that moves some building outline a bit in a random direction?
20:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> Sorry I'm late. Was cought up in arriving home from trip
20:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> Will read back from the beginning now
20:29 < pnorman> I was trying for a 365 mapping day challenge this year. It's a real pain to keep up on it.
20:29 < datendelphin> Hi joost_schouppe[m] glad that you are joining us
20:29 < pnorman> All metrics I've seen on mapping can be gamed.
20:29 < SJFriedl> Hey, we could make that our requirement: you must have mapped 364 of the last 365 days (giving one generous day off) ?
20:30 < Thomas> i have just 348 :/
20:30 < SJFriedl> good luck next year
20:30 <@Stereo> Whatever metric we choose: it should be easy to measure, and it should be something where most existing members qualify.
20:31 < Thomas> if we have a histogram and know how much should qualify, we can define the level 
20:31 < SJFriedl> ... and what most members would concur is reasonable, not chosen by MWG for some hidden agenda.
20:32 <@Stereo> We can let the board define the threshold, they have the democratic legitimacy
20:32 < SJFriedl> Would participating in MWG constitute "enough" of a contribution? :-)
20:32 < pnorman> I think it's up to us to propose thresholds.
20:32 <@Stereo> How about proposing three, and letting the board choose?
20:33 <@Stereo> What do we have that's viable anyway?
20:33 < SJFriedl> reports?
20:33 < Thomas> so let's say 66% of all mappers with edits last year should qualify? then use a histogram and define the number of days the level should be?
20:33 <@Stereo> Ah, so a moving target?
20:34 < datendelphin> Thomas: no way!
20:34 < Thomas> why?
20:34 < datendelphin> That will be 1 day!
20:34 <@Stereo> 66% is really low. Most people map once.
20:34 < pnorman> the long tail is *very* long.
20:34 < datendelphin> remember the long tail. Most contributors map once. In the whole life of the project.
20:34 < SJFriedl> hence the need for a histogram.  I wonder if Pascal could be asked for his analysis?
20:35 < Thomas> whatever the percenttage should be...just thought we should find a number we feel good with
20:35 < datendelphin> Here is the scattergram: https://harrywood.co.uk/blog/2014/11/17/the-long-tail-of-openstreetmap/
20:35 < pnorman> A histogram of current 30-day active mappers might be useful
20:35 <@Stereo> Ok, I'll suggest one threshold: 30 days of mapping in the last year, as measured by https://hdyc.neis-one.org/
20:35 < pnorman> Stereo: I was thinking about that number too
20:35 < Thomas> ^^ without knowing how much of the mappers would qualify then?
20:36 < SJFriedl> that feels like a good metric also, though perhaps it has to be in some minimum number of months?
20:36 < SJFriedl> 30 days of mapping in at least 4 months? I dunno.
20:36 <@Stereo> And if we want to avoid having people who only map for work, we can require at least one day of mapping for every day of the week
20:36 < datendelphin> Thomas: yes. Because of the long tail dynamics. That just does not work or will result in a ridiculous and elitist looking number
20:37 <@Stereo> If we say '3 months' at least Pascal's tool can already do it
20:37 < SJFriedl> so this is for fee waiver, or regular membership?
20:38 <@Stereo> Fee waiver SJFriedl, we'll discuss regular membership later
20:38 <@Stereo> Does anyone have any proposals other than 'days of mapping' ?
20:38 < SJFriedl> great.  I am not sure I would be in favor of *any* fee waiver for somebody whose day job was mapping.
20:39 < SJFriedl> otherwise you're telling Facebook or GL: all your mapping people can join for free?
20:39 < datendelphin> Ok, so I concede, I'm alone in wanting to not only look at days. Let's focus on that
20:39 <@Stereo> datendelphin: you're not, but you have to come up with something else that's workable :)
20:39 < pnorman> datendelphin: I'd love something that's not only days if it was easy to evaluate, easy to understand, less resistant to gaming, and practical.
20:40 < datendelphin> Well I thought map features added might tick those boxes, but it is a bit more complicated I admit
20:41 < datendelphin> anyway, what is our next step?
20:41 <@Stereo> Next step is coming up with a proposed threshold
20:41 <@Stereo> Paul, Joost or I can present that to the board during the next meeting
20:41 < datendelphin> running out members database against mapping days in the last year maybe?
20:41 < datendelphin> To get an idea?
20:41 < SJFriedl> 30 days out of the last year, in at least 3 diff months. That has a great ring to it.
20:42 < Thomas> 32 days would already be two months ;)
20:42 < SJFriedl> I don't think that's the kind of gaming we're worried about?
20:42 < datendelphin> Sure, but I (have minimal) hope the board would request a bit more than just a great ring to it :)
20:42 < SJFriedl> actually, 32 days could be *three* months if it's the end of Jan --> early March
20:42 < SJFriedl> so could 30
20:43 < SJFriedl> but this seems super petty 
20:43 <@Stereo> How's this: we settle on 30 days over at least three months in the last year and not employed in mapping. Then we can, after the meeting, prepare a graph showing what percentage of our members qualify.
20:43 < joost_schouppe[m]> The number is always going to be somewhat meaningless. A histogram would be great to get a better feel for it
20:44 < pnorman> I want to do a histogram on numbers from those who have mapped in the last 30 days
20:44 <@Stereo> And if we find that there's a huge number that *doesn't* qualify, we tell the board we came up with something that's maybe not a good idea :)
20:44 < datendelphin> (minor nitpick: replace not employed in mapping with contributions from paid mapping do not count)
20:44 < Thomas> as far i understood, the number of mappers who will qualify will be pretty low and better not to be published
20:45 <@Stereo> All right
20:45 <@Stereo> Let's get the wording done on https://pads.ccc.de/bRJhDQI3Vg
20:45 < pnorman> I'll abstain from the voting on if the not employed in mapping part, but request that we still have something that's possible to evaluate
20:46 < SJFriedl> I think the point here is re: histogram, we have a structure that we like, but need a histogram to tune the numbers.  <N> days spread out of <M> months in the last year.
20:46 < SJFriedl> to tune *and justify* the numbers
20:47 < Thomas> + OR made any other significant contribution to OSM to be reviewed manually
20:47 < Thomas> nevermind
20:47 <@Stereo> Just hack away at my text everyone
20:47 < Thomas> already added
20:48 < datendelphin> I like it. I think in corollary that means we require them to keep different accounts for paid and unpaid mapping
20:48 < SJFriedl> datendelphin, +1
20:48 < pnorman> Should we review past fee waivers to see what M and N they would have under the new proposal?
20:48 <@Stereo> I see it as a checkbox - [ ] I solemny swear that I wasn't paid for mapping activities over at least 30 days / 3 months
20:49 <@Stereo> If someone maps for money, and uses the same account in the evening to map their neighbourhood, that's cool
20:49 < datendelphin> we can review them, but they are quite few still. So not worthy of a statistic
20:49 < Thomas> from my feeling most existing fee waivers would qualify with the new rule.
20:49 < datendelphin> Who is doing this graph anyway?
20:49 <@Stereo> Should we require mapping during every day of the week?
20:50 < pnorman> That's my impression too
20:50 <@Stereo> You are :)
20:50 <@Stereo> I'll prepare a list of usernames
20:50 < datendelphin> ah great
20:50 < datendelphin> so let's move on to 3.
20:50 < Thomas> I can make the histogram...just need raw data
20:50  * pnorman has a changeset database handy
20:50 <@Stereo> Ok, should we vote on the proposal as it's written? Who's in favour/against/abstain?
20:51 < datendelphin> oh right. Let's do that. I'm in favour
20:51 <@Stereo> Or just leave it as it is and move on, first time I see a Swiss person who doesn't like to have a lot of voting :]
20:51 <@Stereo> In favour
20:51 < datendelphin> :)
20:51 < pnorman> In favour
20:51 < Thomas> In favour
20:51 <@Stereo> joost_schouppe[m]: ping :)
20:51 < pnorman> (although abstaining on the paid part)
20:52 < joost_schouppe[m]> Yep, looks good to me
20:52  * SJFriedl In favor (spelling the word properly)
20:52 < SJFriedl> :-)
20:52 <@Stereo> Unanimous with one invalid misspelled vote and one partial abstention
20:52 < datendelphin> About 3: that one came up during discussions end of December
20:53 < datendelphin> I wrote my um... point of view down
20:53 <@Stereo> So 3 is: Framing of Fee Waiver
20:53 < datendelphin> yes. I'll post my short text:
20:53 < datendelphin> The phrase "Fee waiver" sounds like it is an exception. But actually the rationale is: Everyone who is an active contributor (see sizable contribution) should participate in the OSMF. Because the OSMF should serve the mappers, every active contributor should help steer the OSMF in the right direction.
20:53 < datendelphin> Therefore I propose to use "active contributor member" when communicating about the program, for example on join.osmfoundation.org, as a better phrase for this type of membership.
20:53 < SJFriedl> I like datendelphin's whole direction here.  We want this to be a welcoming thing, not a charity thing, right?
20:54 < Thomas> honorary member ;)
20:54 < joost_schouppe[m]> Totally in favo(u)r
20:54 < pnorman> Yes, I like the worlding. It won't be the first case of a difference between the formal name of a membership type and what we call it. (e.g. "member" vs "regular member", "non-natural person associate member" vs "corporate member")
20:55 < pnorman> s/worlding/wording/
20:55 < Thomas> is it a new kind of membership?
20:55 < SJFriedl> pnorman, plus "corporate shill member" ?
20:56 < datendelphin> no just a different name for fee waiver we could use towards the public
20:56 < SJFriedl> +1
20:56 < SJFriedl> "active contributor member" is great.   These would have to be renewed annually, right?
20:57 < datendelphin> any questions? Should we vote on this?
20:57 <@Stereo> Hmm
20:57 < Thomas> I have issues with it
20:57 < datendelphin> yes, it is the fee waiver, has to be renewed
20:57 <@Stereo> So we have 'normal member' 'associate member' 'active contribution member' and 'corporate member' - is that comprehensible to the outside world?
20:57 < Thomas> how to know what a member in terms of kind of membership and what the payment vs free membership is?
20:57 < datendelphin> yes I think
20:57 < SJFriedl> These memberships would all be Associate, right, as far as AoA is concerned?
20:57 <@Stereo> contributor or contribution
20:58 <@Stereo> sweat-of-the-brow member :)
20:58 < pnorman> Yes
20:59 < datendelphin> hm don't know what you mean
21:00 < pnorman> yes, all memberships are associate members (except for normal member)
21:01 < Thomas> we have 'normal member' and 'associate member'. 'active contributor member' sounds like another membership and does not look to beloging to associate member'
21:01 < datendelphin> yes but that is the case with fee-waiver as well
21:01 < datendelphin> We explain it on the fee waiver page
21:02 < SJFriedl> ok, so membership type is fixed at Normal & Assoc.  *Payment* type is either money, or fee waiver, or active contributor
21:02 < datendelphin> It's the best we can do
21:02 <@Stereo> should we have associate in the name then?
21:02 < SJFriedl> Payment is not the right way to say this
21:02 < Thomas> yes, and if you ask one what kind of member a fee waiver member is, i guess no one can answer this question except a few experts
21:02 <@Stereo> active contributor associate member
21:02 < pnorman> What is the audience for these names?
21:02 < SJFriedl> Fee-waiver members are Associates whose fee-waiver-ness is invisible to anybody except MWG and the board.
21:02 < SJFriedl> Would we assume that "Active contributor" status would be public?
21:03 < SJFriedl> I think it should be for transparency
21:03 <@Stereo> For the histogram: https://mwg.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Member_Nicknames , use the source code as a csv
21:03 < pnorman> Can it be? iirc it can't for if someone is a fee waiver member
21:03 < Thomas> Sponsored, Waived, Paid associate member?
21:04 < SJFriedl> We're doing away with fee waiver, right?  If they are an active contributor then it doesn't matter whether they have money-transfer and/or hardship issues
21:04 <@Stereo> We can publish how many we have, but I wouldn't want people to know I got a free membership
21:05 < SJFriedl> why not?
21:05 < datendelphin> I would not add associate
21:05 <@Stereo> Nobody's business but mine
21:05 < datendelphin> It does not matter that much. We should explain it.
21:06 < datendelphin> I don't think that is so hard to get
21:06 < pnorman> Perhaps we can put the terms aside for now and think about them offline?
21:06 < SJFriedl> The concern I have is that this could be seen as MWG giving away free memberships to our friends.
21:06 < SJFriedl> aka: not so transparent
21:06 <@Stereo> Our criteria are transparent
21:07 < SJFriedl> Hmmm, good point.
21:07 < pnorman> Isn't that also true of current fee waiver members?
21:07 < SJFriedl> Current fee-waiver members speak to their personal financial / citizenship circumstances rather than to their contributions to OSM
21:07 < datendelphin> How is that different with the fee waiver? It is actually more of a problem for that term!
21:07 <@Stereo> It's also private, personal information. We don't release it now, and we shouldn't in the future.
21:08 < datendelphin> Yes
21:08 <@Stereo> People's contribution is public anyway. Whether they choose to pay for OSMF membership or not is their business.
21:08 < SJFriedl> You have made a very good case (to me) that this is not a crucial issue, we can move on. thank you.
21:10 <@Stereo> So: active contributor member? Active contribution member? 
21:10 < datendelphin> (I have another meeting now, if someone els would like to finish this meeting...)
21:10 <@Stereo> Awww
21:10 < SJFriedl> Active Contributor; it speaks to the person and not their work product.
21:10 <@Stereo> I'd have loved your input on the membership thing datendelphin. Happy to chat later.
21:10 < SJFriedl> Have fun at your cheese-and-chocolate club meeting.
21:10 <@Stereo> SJFriedl: you're now chairing the meeting :)
21:10 < SJFriedl> ok then!
21:11 <@Stereo> What's next?
21:11  * SJFriedl is operating at only 50% facility today; was inexplicably up and awake at 4AM today and I'm falling asleep.
21:11 <@Stereo> Oh, AOB
21:12 <@Stereo> Well no wonder, California is like 9 hours behind. I'd be tired if I had to stay up until 9 am every day.
21:12 < SJFriedl> so what have we decided? We need a histogram to tune the numbers.  Are we deciding what to call this membership, or is that for another time?
21:13 < Thomas> Stereo afaik the histogram should be for all OSM contributors not just OSMF members, right? I can talk with Pascal
21:13 <@Stereo> We've agreed on wording, we're going to check and do a histogram to make sure we're not doing something stupid, and I think we could use a vote on calling it 'active contributor membership' instead of 'fee waiver'
21:13 <@Stereo> Thomas: for all osm contributors it's going to be very long tail...
21:14 < Thomas> depends on the number of bins
21:14 < SJFriedl> Are we limiting "active contributor member" to just those who pass the histogram test, or to those who do other stuff that MWG/Board more subjectively evaluate?
21:14 < pnorman> I'm planning to do a histogram of those who have edited in the last 30 days
21:15 < Thomas> ok. Then no need to talk to Pascal :)
21:15 <@Stereo> Unless the histograms show we're doing something very stupid, we're in favour of 30 days for now.
21:16 <@Stereo> I'm jumping up and calling a vote on renaming 'fee waiver' to 'active contributor membership'
21:16 < joost_schouppe[m]> <SJFriedl "Are we limiting "active contribu"> The extended waiver as intended for any contribution, not just mapping
21:16 <@Stereo> and voting in favour
21:17  * SJFriedl votes in favour
21:17 < Thomas> same, voting in favour
21:18 < joost_schouppe[m]> Mr too
21:18 < joost_schouppe[m]> In favor
21:18 < pnorman> +1
21:18 <@Stereo> Cool, unanimous
21:18 < SJFriedl> with correct spelling, no less
21:18 < pnorman> How are we going to handle non-mapping contributions?
21:19 <@Stereo> You have to ask the board to decide
21:19 <@Stereo> As in, hello board, I've never mapped but I wrote Potlatch, let me in. And the board says yes, we let you in.
21:19 < SJFriedl> Will these be submitted to MWG for screening and forwarding, or will people go to the board directly?
21:20 < SJFriedl> I would imagine MWG could do administrative prep work: look up contributions, verify claims, prepare a summary perhaps with recommendations.
21:20 <@Stereo> They come in through our pipe, so we forward those that have something in the text field and less than the mapping threshold?
21:20 <@Stereo> Yeah, like we're doing now
21:20 < Thomas> the fee waiver process could be re-used i.e. via OTRS
21:21 <@Stereo> Sounds good
21:22 <@Stereo> Would anyone like to add something or ask other questions? If not, we can move to skin in the game requirements for all new members.
21:22 < SJFriedl> Have we noted officially that these would have to be renewed annually?
21:23 <@Stereo> Ah, like they do now, no? No changes there.
21:23 < SJFriedl> good enough
21:24 < Thomas> How are the memberships for the 30+ mapping day mapper granted? Automatically or via OTRS?
21:24 <@Stereo> OTRS for now, CiviCRM can't check numbers of edits yet
21:25 < Thomas> so the number of tivkets will increase a lot
21:26 < Thomas> sorry, we can move on
21:27 <@Stereo> To the membership thing?
21:27 < SJFriedl> To be clear, nobody gets an Active Contributor membership without explicitly asking for it, right? It's not like we create a Membership Fairy program that doles these out?
21:27 <@Stereo> Yes SJFriedl 
21:27 <@Stereo> Like now
21:27 <@Stereo> Well, we might once we get the process more streamlined invite like the top contributors of some countries to join
21:27 < SJFriedl> Yes.
21:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> Well I did launch the idea within the board to actively seek out a 1000 people who contribute a lot and are from underrepresented countries
21:28  * SJFriedl loves that idea
21:28 < joost_schouppe[m]> The reaction within the board was a bit mixed
21:29 <@Stereo> It would certainly be within mwg/cwg's remit to do that Joost
21:29 < SJFriedl> Once this is in place, there's nothing to stop anybody - whether MWG, the board, or random people - to seek these contributors and suggest that they apply.
21:29 <@Stereo> The board wasn't against it, I think. Just wasn't clear what the board was expected to do.
21:29 <@Stereo> Yeah
21:30 < SJFriedl> Nobody can say "you're not allowed to tell somebody they should apply"
21:30 < joost_schouppe[m]> True, there wasn't anyone really against it I believe
21:30 < joost_schouppe[m]> But I think there'd be added value if you can say something like "we the board looked at your editing profile and think ya should join OSMF"
21:31 <@Stereo> I think Allan is interested in doing something like that
21:31 < SJFriedl> This is something that could naturally evolve once the program is running, and we don't really even have to think about it other than to build a process that works smoothly
21:32 < joost_schouppe[m]> If mwg is in favour and willing to support, that would help. And yeah, the program should be running first
21:32 < pnorman> I'd like to get the program launched first.
21:32 < SJFriedl> +1
21:32 <@Stereo> joost_schouppe[m]: why don't you prepare a board resolution? "The Board invites all active mappers anywhere to apply to the mwg's active contributor membership, and tasks MWG with contacting the most active mappers in underrepresented countries to extend this invitation" or something
21:33 < SJFriedl> Premature
21:33 <@Stereo> Ok
21:33 <@Stereo> Shall we move to the next point then?
21:33 <@Stereo> So, one of the most insightful comments I read during the GlobalLogic report days was https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/ak7tf9/openstreetmap_foundation_investigation_into/ef3fjcl/
21:34 <@Stereo> The reply from the member of the Document Foundation was interesting too - they require three months of time on non-trivial things! That's a high bar.
21:37 <@Stereo> I like the wording we have for the fee waiver, and I think we should have a similar threshold for membership
21:37 <@Stereo> Have I lost everyone? :)
21:38 < Thomas> not everyone :)
21:38 < pnorman> The basis for such a threshold would be completely different. In this case, it would be that when an applicant does not meet certain thresholds, the board is informed, and can, if they choose so, hold a vote to reject the membership.
21:39 <@Stereo> I believe the board can instruct mwg to automatically reject
21:39 < joost_schouppe[m]> I think such a change would be a better fit for a change in AoA then just a change of practice. Because it's quite a change
21:39 < pnorman> I don't see that the AoA allows that.
21:39 <@Stereo> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#MEMBERSHIP_AND_ASSOCIATE_MEMBERSHIP is the relevant text
21:39 < pnorman> I also think this is a better fit for an AoA change
21:39 < SJFriedl> MWG can always have parameters: reject for obvious reasons, accept for obvious reasons, pass to board for in the middle.
21:40 < SJFriedl> Changes to Normal Member would related to AoA requirements, but Associates Members would not?
21:41 <@Stereo> We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good. It's certainly doable now without an AoA change. We can fossilise it in the AoA when we're happy with it, but it's up to the board what applications it accepts or rejects.
21:41 < SJFriedl> is it possible that Normal Members get in just by paying the fee, but Associate Members get this special consideration by MWG ?
21:41 <@Stereo> There's nothing in the AoA that says the board can't have standing instructions, or can't set rules and thresholds for acceptation
21:41 <@Stereo> No, this can be for all members
21:42 < pnorman> AoA s. 15 is the relevant one
21:43 < SJFriedl> I wouldn't mind a legal-esque opinion about this from somebody who knows UK Companies Act law just to CYA, but that could be later.
21:43 <@Stereo> That can be the board's problem.
21:43 < SJFriedl> oh, duh, yes.
21:45 <@Stereo> During the last meeting, Rory suggested that this could even be up to MWG - automatically forward any new members who haven't edited much
21:46 <@Stereo> But it'd be quicker if we had some kind of agreement with the board on the threshold etc.
21:46 < datendelphin> meeting still running? Threshold for members: ok for me. But I would create a donation membership then. No vote, but supports the project financially
21:47 <@Stereo> Treasurer hat on: we already have donations, and recurring donations, and they're a bit of a pain in the ass to manage right now. I'd like to manage them in civicrm too.
21:48 <@Stereo> I don't think we need to call donations 'memberships'. They're donations, with no kind of membership at all. There's a bit of administrative workload to convert between the two.
21:48 <@Stereo> Having everything in one system would make this a lot easier.
21:48 <@Stereo> Treasurer hat off.
21:48 < SJFriedl> Conflating pure donations with memberships doesn't really add any value
21:48 < SJFriedl> aka: I agree with Stereo
21:49 <@Stereo> But having them in one system lets us invite donators to become members, or reject someone very nicely by asking if they'd like to convert their membership application into a donation instead and maybe re-apply when they've mapped a bit more, etc.
21:49 < SJFriedl> yes
21:49 < datendelphin> recurring donation, yes. Just that we remind the people yearly if they want to
21:50 <@Stereo> We already have recurring donations. People just set them up somehow.
21:50 < datendelphin> mainly present it as alternative when someone can't get a membership
21:51 <@Stereo> Yeah
21:51 < datendelphin> yeah we should provide that service if we can
21:51 < pnorman> I have a call coming up in a few minutes, but another AOB to consider is getting any budget requests in for CiviCRM or website work for the 2020 budget - even though the treasurer hasn't sent around a request yet
21:51 <@Stereo> So I'll just throw this out there: should we set the same thresholds for membership that we set for waivers?
21:52 < datendelphin> I hope we can get by without the budget. It will take longer I guess
21:52 < SJFriedl> you mean set the threshold  the same both both, such that there's no real reason to pay to join?
21:53 <@Stereo> SJFriedl: yes
21:53 < datendelphin> sounds fair. But I would still rather put the bar lower
21:53 <@Stereo> <Treasurer>I do know that datendelphin hasn't received prices yet. As far as I understand, not many WGs send out budgets anyway. The board can always approve funds as a one-off.</Treasurer>
21:53 <@Stereo> 29 days? :)
21:54  * SJFriedl thinks that it's premature to set that kind of bar for paying membership when we don't yet know how that active contributor membership plays out.
21:54 < pnorman> I also think it's premature
21:54 < joost_schouppe[m]> I think we should start a wider conversation about this topic already
21:54 <@Stereo> I think it's been one year since the GlobalLogic report and we still don't require any skin in the game.
21:55 < joost_schouppe[m]> But not jump to an implementation
21:55 <@Stereo> The implementation can be changed.
21:55 < SJFriedl> It took a year to get Stereo on the board.
21:55 <@Stereo> We're not casting anything in stone or doing anything that can't be changed in half an hour.
21:55 <@Stereo> What we're doing is closing the barn door.
21:56  * SJFriedl is in favor of skin-in-the-game but think there's enough for us to do to get the active contributor thing rolled out; that is very much addressing the GL issues.
21:56 <@Stereo> I'm not absolutely attached to that number of days, but we have a responsability to act on skin-in-the-game.
21:56 < SJFriedl> Then, perhaps in a month or two, we can revisit the second phase of this.
21:57 < pnorman> +1 to whay SJFriedl said
21:57 <@Stereo> So there seems to be consensus on skin-in-the-game
21:58 < SJFriedl> generally yes, but not with concrete details sufficient to act upon just yet.
21:58 <@Stereo> I've been talking about this for a year guys. Surely there's been time to think about the details.
21:59 < SJFriedl> I've been thinking about wider membership and geographic diversity.  That's what we're all clear on.
21:59 <@Stereo> What do we agree on? The board should set a minimum contribution threshold of some kind for new members?
21:59  * SJFriedl is not in favor of any motion *today* on restrictions on somebody paying to join.
21:59 < Thomas> We propose a minimum after reviewing the histogram
21:59 < Thomas> ?
22:00 < SJFriedl> This is very good we're going down this road, but I think: one thing at a time.
22:00 < pnorman> I am also not in favour of any motion today.
22:00 < SJFriedl> pnorman, ... on limitations of *paying* members?
22:00 < pnorman> SJFriedl: yes what you said. signing off for next call
22:00 <@Stereo> I don't understand you lot. We have a minor issue, which is the fee waiver, couple dozen people last year, no urgency, and we agree on what to do. And we have a wide open barn door, we've known about it for a year, and you're like, let's wait for we're not sure what we're waiting for.
22:01  * SJFriedl is concerned about implementing a pretty sweeping policy that will bring us many new members.
22:01  * SJFriedl *loves* the new active contributor membership that will bring us new diverse members. We can get crackin' on it today.
22:01 < SJFriedl> Phase 2 is skin-in-the-game, which doesn't have to be today.
22:02 <@Stereo> They're separate things.
22:02 <@Stereo> Ok, how about this.
22:02 < SJFriedl> Yes.  I'm in favor of the first but - not yet the second.
22:03 <@Stereo> Until the next meeting, I'll manually check any new members. For those who don't qualify in the fee waiver criteria, I'll forward those to the board.
22:03 <@Stereo> The board then has 30 days minus Guillaume reaction time to decide on whether to reject those memberships.
22:03 < SJFriedl> Hmmm. So if the board decided it wasn't ready for what I'm calling Phase 2, they could just approve them all as a matter of course once the payment clears?
22:03 <@Stereo> MWG doesn't suggest that the board should reject, or accept, or even react.
22:04 <@Stereo> Yup
22:04 < SJFriedl> That would create the mechanism to handle this but would not require a policy just yet.   That's some amount of crank-turning for no real upside, but it's not setting policy so is not so bad.
22:04 <@Stereo> And that's symbolically significant - we now check new members, the board actively checks new members with no significant contribution.
22:05 < Thomas> what would they check?
22:05 < SJFriedl> I also think it will serve us well to have the board on board (so to speak) with the Active Contributor Member that we're coming up with. They did delegate this to MWG, and I imagine they will be in agreement, but I don't want MWG to overstep all at once.
22:06 <@Stereo> It's also only until the next meeting, so if we don't like it, it stops.
22:06 <@Stereo> Would we agree to that maybe?
22:07 <@Stereo> Should I phrase it all together?
22:07 < datendelphin> You are on the board, you can do this anyways
22:08 <@Stereo> Until the next MWG meeting, we will, as much as we can with the information we're given, check whether new regular or associate members meet the active contributor membership thresholds. MWG will notify the Board of new memberships that don't meet the thresholds for manual approval or rejection.
22:08  * SJFriedl is ok with that as long as the board knows what this is leading up to.
22:09 <@Stereo> I can do many things, but then it's "Guillaume doing his stuff" and "oh not this shit again" :)
22:09 <@Stereo> Yeah, I'll explain it to the other board members
22:09 < datendelphin> ok
22:09 < datendelphin> but you should discuss this with the membership at large
22:10 <@Stereo> Yes, I think the OSMF needs to have a large debate on what membership means in 2020
22:10 <@Stereo> I actually listed that as my priority for the year on the first board meeting.
22:10 < datendelphin> we have a strong signal for the active contributor membership, but there was no discussion yet for the membership at large
22:10 < joost_schouppe[m]> And I'm afraid rushing this issue will sour that debate even before it starts
22:11 < SJFriedl> this is a big topic.  I'm uneasy with biting off more than we volunteers can chew: the Active Contributor Membership is something everybody can get behind, and I'd rather see how that all plays out.
22:11 < SJFriedl> joost_schouppe[m], +1
22:11 < SJFriedl> Active Contributor Membership is super positive, it's outreach and diversity, nothing to object to.
22:11 <@Stereo> I think that the way I got elected in the first spot after running on that issue is a very strong signal.
22:12 < SJFriedl> Yes, and it's only January :-)
22:12 < SJFriedl> Doing too much all at once just doesn't have a good feel to me. Let's see how Active Contributor membership plays out.
22:13 <@Stereo> I see active contributor membership as a completely different thing.
22:13 < SJFriedl> if you want to forward other membership applications to the board with some research: no harm in that.
22:13 < SJFriedl> so do I.
22:13 <@Stereo> Ok
22:13 < SJFriedl> and one I want to see how it goes first before taking that next step. Obviously you want to do that sooner rather than later.
22:13  * SJFriedl hates being a wet blanket here.
22:14 <@Stereo> Should we have a vote on forwarding those new memberships to the board?
22:14 < SJFriedl> I don't think we need a vote if the one guy who wants to do it just does it?
22:14  * SJFriedl thinks it's not that important.
22:14 < SJFriedl> at least not for the next month.
22:14 < SJFriedl> How about this:
22:15 < SJFriedl> for the next month - until next meeting - we merely keep tabs on the new members and what their stats are, whether they would have been forwarded to board or not, get a sense for volume and mix of new members.
22:15 < SJFriedl> then we'd have baseline data to know what we're working with.
22:15 < Thomas> the board would says no to an application with a name, email and country plus the info that the active contributor criteria is not met?
22:16 <@Stereo> That's already done
22:16 <@Stereo> Three new normal members this month
[Member names redacted]
22:17 < SJFriedl> so #1 would not qualify for active contributor
22:17 < SJFriedl> #2 surely would.
22:17 < SJFriedl> so /me is in favor of giving Stereo leave to forward new-member info to the board if he wants to, but it's not a *directive* to do so.  Mine would be a no-opposition vote.
22:18 < SJFriedl> er, not-opposed
22:18 <@Stereo> Thank you. I'd be happy to get that kind of "ok, go on then" :)
22:18 < joost_schouppe[m]> There is a clear consensus for exploring skin in the game
22:18 < SJFriedl> yes.
22:19 < SJFriedl> and we don't need a vote in Stereo talking to his board collagues about his MWG activities.
22:19 < joost_schouppe[m]> Reporting to board about what a specific measure would mean, seems useful and acceptable to all here
22:20  * SJFriedl likes how this is developing
22:20 < joost_schouppe[m]> I would be in favor of giving Stereo an mwg mandate to explore possible impacts and methoss
22:20 <@Stereo> Well it would have helped me if I could have told my board colleagues that MWG has lots of ideas and suggestions that we could explore
22:20 < joost_schouppe[m]> Or something like that
22:20 < SJFriedl> we voted for the Active Contributor Member, which I think is **huge**.  More important than skin-in-the-game.
22:23 <@Stereo> I'm happy to explore possible measures and impacts, but I don't really see what form it could take outside of those histograms
22:23 <@Stereo> Oh, in the last month we also got a new member who didn't provide their osm username.
22:23 < datendelphin> May I ask LWG if we are allowed to share private date (like the member names above) on irc. And I expect the answer is No. And we probaby should find some solution for out meetings where we can share such data.
22:24 < SJFriedl> should we elide those from the minutes?
22:25 <@Stereo> Definitely redact from the minutes
22:25 <@Stereo> But otherwise everyone here has signed the mwg nda, no?
22:25 <@Stereo> Thomas: did we make you sign the nda?
22:25 < Thomas> yes
22:26 < Thomas> actually, 2 NDAs
22:26 < datendelphin> It's about the server not about us
22:27 <@Stereo> https://www.oftc.net/Privacy_Policy/ "OFTC does not log any IRC traffic content, neither from public channels, nor from private messages"
22:28 < datendelphin> Let's aks LWG please. And we would need to lock down the room, currently it is open to everyone
22:28 -!- mode/#osmf-membership [+i] by Stereo
22:28 <@Stereo> Done :)
22:28 <@Stereo> Can we please get back to the issue?
22:28 < SJFriedl> it's fair to ask LWG for due diligence.  The information shared so far has been at the very low end of "private".
22:29 < SJFriedl> yes.
22:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> Ehum. Everything here is also logged on matrix servers I think
22:29 < joost_schouppe[m]> Because of my connection
22:29 < datendelphin> you are obviously not european SJFriedl ;) but yes let's get back
22:30 < SJFriedl> fair point.
22:30 < Thomas> there is a mattermost server run by OSM DE...if that helps
22:31 <@Stereo> I'd like us to vote on this: MWG is in favour of ensuring skin in the game for memberships. For the next month or until next meeting, whichever comes first, we will, as much as we can with the information we're given, check whether new regular or associate members meet the active contributor membership thresholds. MWG will notify the Board of new memberships that don't meet the thresholds for 
22:31 <@Stereo> manual approval or rejection. At the end of ...
22:31 <@Stereo> ... that trial period, MWG will produce an evaluation, suggest possible methods for ensuring skin in the game in new members, and attempt to predict their impact.
22:32 <@Stereo> And I'll vote in favour
22:32 < SJFriedl> This sounds excellent. I'm on board.
22:32 < datendelphin> yes
22:32 < Thomas> ok
22:33 <@Stereo> Phew :)
22:33 <@Stereo> Good
22:34 -!- Irssi: #osmf-membership: Total of 8 nicks [1 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 7 normal]
22:35 <@Stereo> Any other other business?
22:35 < SJFriedl> nothing I can think of
22:35 < datendelphin> ok, I hope that's it? Good night/day to all
Retrieved from "https://osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Working_Group_Minutes/MWG_2020-01-19&oldid=6835"