OpenStreetMap
Thoughts on paid services as means of resources in OpenStreetMap Foundation and Local Chapters
Posted by Nicolas Chavent on 4 February 2021 in English.Resources of OpenStreetMap Foundation (OMSF), OSMF Local Chapters (LC): the question and status of paid services.
In the context of the community consultations phase of OpenStreetMap Uganda (see email 1), Poland (see email 2) and Japan (see email 3) Local Chapter LC applications, I shared my thoughts about paid services as a means of resources for OSMF and LCs. I have been invited to start a discussion of its own about this topic, hence this note.
I orginally developped this topics as well as others in the context of the MapUganda application which read as an email (see email 4) and a diary note (5) .
Since I think it makes sense to also discuss the status of paid services as a resource for OSMF and LC generally outside of a specific context, I am producing below the section on this topic extracted from my MapUganda-related email/note (4,5).
== Email extract - start ==
We shall first look back at OSMF and LC and remind ourselves of the early ages of the OSM project when its ecosystem was nascent and review some of the strengths that lead to its current affirmation.
Frederik’s question (see email 6) brings us with the non written rule or the jurisprudence behind the practices under which OSMF and LC from “developed” countries have been functioning resources-wise so far: banning paid services from their resources.
This is true at OSMF and this is equally true in given LC like OSMFR where this banning of “paid services” from the actual resources of the association is collectively restated year after year at its AGM.
This choice in terms of OSMF resources as well as the choice of keeping the Foundation small (in its resources, staffing, perimeter of actions) has the benefit to leave the provision of paid services provision in the hands of “business” entities of all types (freelancers, associations, cooperatives, NGOs, business firms…) outside of the OSMF which largely remains a volunteer-based organization.
- This allows OSMF neutrality vis a vis business entities.
- This limits the room for business logics as well as conflict of interests in the OSMF which has to handle the influence of business and business logics without having to operate with business logics.
- This efficiently limits the “benefits” members and especially directors can expect from OSMF.
- This also safeguards reasonably the OSMF Board so that professionals or members of business entities can participate without breaking OSMF neutrality towards economic operators.
These choices contribute essentially to the autonomy of the OSMF and the OSM sustainability in the long run allowing for a diversified ecosystem and free interactions of all actors including business entities of all sorts.”
This community discussion about MapUganda LC approval highlights the needs to revise and consolidate parts of LC and OSMF aspects and processes, these future discussions shall feature making this “paid services” jurisprudence a written law as well as defining the essential perimeter of actions of the OSMF which has been recently enlarged to system administration, software development, fundraising and human resources not without yielding questions about possible changes this can brought to the model of the small OSMF which spearheaded the growth of the project up to now.”
= Email extract end =
I’d be interested in hearing from you on this topic within:
- the context of this OSM Uganda, Slovakia, Poland and Japan LC application ; but also
- As a practice for consideration/thinking in OSMF which could lead,
if deemed relevant, to codifying good practice, producing LC resource
template, possibly amending AoA.
Best, Nicolas.
Discussion
Comment from RobJN on 4 February 2021 at 22:55
I think we should let each local group decide what works best for them. We should therefore not add extra rules that might work well in some parts of the world but not in others.
On clauses in the Articles of Association, my own experience of helping to set up OSM UK is that you should be really careful what clauses you add to the Articles of Association. Every extra clause makes it harder to do something and what might seem like a good idea at first, could cause you more trouble that what it is worth. I think it is much better to define principles but allow flexibility. With regular elections the board can be held to account if the local community feel it is deviating too far from the principles.
Summary: Let local groups decide and ensure that the local members can elect new directors / vote on resolutions if they feel the need to change direction.
Comment from SK53 on 6 February 2021 at 20:34
Pretty much the standard way this is done with UK not-for-profits (especially charities) is to set up a separate for-profit entity which is owned by the not-for-profit. Examples might be a conservation organisation which runs a cafe. The subsidiary remits profits by dividend payments to the parent organisation.
This may seem slightly unwieldy, but protects the NGOs finances (other than any capital deployed), provides clearer accounting & governance structures, and also allows partnership with other organisations.
In my experience profits returned may be rather patchy as often investments are needed to ensure the continued viability of the profit-making element. This in turn may be another good reason for separating them, as management time is likely to be devoured by this aspect if all part of one organisation.
On the other hand OSMF have never done this with SotM.
Comment from Jean-Marc Liotier on 14 February 2021 at 11:16
I support such clarification. Has it been discussed with the LCCWG yet ? I like the UK method exposed by SK53.
Comment from imagico on 14 February 2021 at 18:52
To make sure things don’t get lost and since not everyone reading here will also be reading (or able to write) on osmf-talk here the comment i also posted there:
I think this is an important consideration and as you say in particular in light of the significantly widening economic activities of the OSMF it deserves getting priority.
However i also think that limiting these thoughts to a potential policy on “paid services” would not sufficiently address the underlying issues in terms of social dynamics within the larger OSM community. Within today’s economic context if some activities receive direct reimbursement or not (i.e. paid vs. unpaid services) often does not make such a big difference.
My thought is that a clear and universal subsidarity principle within and among organizations in the OSM world could help addressing some of the same problems you mention in context of paid services as well as more broadly negative social and economic implications of economic activities of organizations whose primary purpose is non-economic in nature.
In a nutshell subsidarity would mean that in an organization (be that the OSMF or a local chapter or even within one of them, like in the board - working groups relationship), no one should engage in activities or aim to fulfill functions that could be or are covered by more localized activities within the community.
That would pertain to the OSMF-LC relationship just like the relationship between a local chapter and the businesses, more local organizations and individual volunteers within its realm. In the above form the principle is too vague and abstract to be very useful, it would need to be put into more concrete practical rules, this is just meant to give an idea what i mean.
I don’t think the OSMF should try to impose such a principle onto local chapters as a hard requirement for recognition, it would more be something that works through leading by example - the OSMF would impose such a restriction on itself (which could be a tough sell and might only work through a direct initiative from the OSMF members) and suggest to local organizations to handle things similarly.
Comment from RobJN on 17 February 2021 at 19:57
The “UK method” is appropriate for large organisations but adds significant extra work for smaller organisations. I can confirm that OSM UK does not do do this.
If you want a low effort, high gain change, then one suggestion would be that Local Chapters have to offer out any work to the community prior to taking it on themselves. The OSM UK Local Chapter does this. Each time we are approached to do paid work, we share the scope of the work openly with our community. Anyone is free to apply to do this work and the company can pick who they want without interference from OSM UK. This has been successful on several occasions for us. In other instances nobody came forward to do the work. In those cases the OSM UK Local Chapter did the work via one or more of the board members and the money raised went in to the OSM UK account for use on OSM UK projects.
If you ban Local Chapters from engaging in paid work, then you reduce the number of ways that Local Chapters can raise money. Less money means less ability to support the local community.