> The 2011/2012 board has actually done some steps in that direction, with
>Mikel reaching out to a number of professional strategic consultants and
>getting a broad idea of what (if anything) they could possibly do for OSM(F).
>The results
> were mixed and my reading (I wasn't on the board at that time) was largely
> that with things as they are, we're not ready for such a step yet. If Mikel
> himself would like to say a few bits about this?
Yes, at the Board's request, I held conversations with several folks about
strategic planning and OSMF. That included the group that coordinated HOT's
strategic planning
(http://hot.openstreetmap.org/updates/2012-05-14_update_from_hots_strategic_planning_meeting),
and a few folks involved in Wikimedia's strategic planning. Everyone was quite
interested in our issues and dynamics; an open, globally distributed community
is a challenge to any kind of organizational planning, an interesting one.
Something like the Wikimedia process might be useful, eventually. But OSMF is
not nearly as developed as Wikimedia was when they started this; in other
words, OSMF is not yet ready, and recommendation was to find our way through
top issues, develop things a bit more ourselves, then reassess.
There is a lot we can clearly be working on. Get Management Team up and
running; update the Articles of Association; draw up Terms of Reference and
Codes of Conduct for those handling OSMF assets; develop Local Chapters. This
is a lot of documenting work, the kind of not super exciting but super
necessary work Richard was talking about within the SWG. And reviving SWG might
be a good way to address some of this.
So I agree with Frederik somewhat here. We're not ready for full on strategic
planning, but there are very useful and clear things to do right now.
The real issue remains how to build momentum, drive, interest, excitement,
cooperation, in this sort of work. There's are bubbles of interest in working
this out, and then some tough discussion comes up which seems to derail it.
It's not clear who's leading the charge. I think it will take a few dedicated
folks, with the blessing of the Board, with open communication, but a focus on
timely results. If 1-3 folks took the reins, and set the pace, then the rest of
us could find places to constructively contribute to a more stable organization.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>________________________________
> From: Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>
>To: Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>
>Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <talk@openstreetmap.org>
>Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?
>
>Hi,
>
>On 03.02.2013 23:59, Clifford Snow wrote:
>> I want to make sure we are clear. Are you signaling your belief that we
>> need some strategic planning?
>
>I'm hesitant to say "yes" because your sentence can mean a lot of different
>things to different people.
>
>In the worst case, "we need some strategic planning" could be read as "the
>OSMF should make plans for where OSM should be in ten years and the project
>should then follow". This is certainly not a view that I would subscribe to.
>
>I tend to avoid the word "strategic planning" because it always sounds so
>gloriously important (and attracts those who like that). Used by the wrong
>people, the existence of "strategic plans" for OSM would make every mapper but
>a pawn in some grand scheme thought out by the glamourous architects without
>whom the project would be nothing. Nothing could be further from the truth and
>we must avoid to give people such an idea.
>
>But of course it cannot hurt to think about the future together, try and
>predict the problems we might be facing in five years, and make plans to be
>prepared - rather than waiting for the problem to suddenly appear ;)
>
>The 2011/2012 board has actually done some steps in that direction, with Mikel
>reaching out to a number of professional strategic consultants and getting a
>broad idea of what (if anything) they could possibly do for OSM(F). The
>results were mixed and my reading (I wasn't on the board at that time) was
>largely that with things as they are, we're not ready for such a step yet. If
>Mikel himself would like to say a few bits about this?
>
>Having a strategy is good but trying to find one can tie up a lot of resources
>and personally I'm not sure if starting a committee is the right thing. I
>think that OSMF should first get their house in order (I mentioned several
>things reflected in the board minutes, like Management Team, Articles of
>Association etc.) and then hopefully we are in a position where the board of
>directors can spend more time thinking about "strategic" things, and then,
>much, much further down the line, maybe we'll even be in a position to fork
>out millions for a strategy consultant like Wikimedia did ;)
>
>This is all baby steps right now and IMHO not something that will yield
>visible results in Pawel's desired half-year time frame. You have to match up
>your high-flying thoughts with what can acutally be achieved, and in the end
>OSM is about enthusiasts with their feet on the ground (or their hands on the
>keyboard) whom we have to give all the support we can.
>
>Bye
>Frederik
>
>-- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
