# OSM Global Community Cohesion, Growth and Direction

## How do you define the OSM community

### Who is the OSM community?

> [name=Allan] Everybody who contributes something positive to the OSM project.

> [name=Guillaume]

> Community is in the eye of the beholder; it will be different for anyone. Contributors, data users, tile users, researchers, etc. can all be stakeholders, and be considered and/or consider themselves part of the community.

> Any organisation or person that contributes to, uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to OpenStreetMap ;-).

> [name=Joost]
> everybody who has love for the project

> [name=Mikel]
> * Anyone making contribution to OSM -- whether data, tech, communication and events.
> * Organizations that are present in OSM making contribution, where their mission is aligned

> [name=Paul]
> * People contributing to OSM of their own free will who consider themselves part of OSM

> [name=Rory]
> * People who want to be there, people who are there of their own free will.
> * People who want to, and try to, further the aims of the OSM project (mapping, software dev, organising)

> [name=Tobias]
> * Any human contributing to OSM who considers themselves part of the OSM community.

### Who is *not* OSM community, if anyone?

> [name=Allan] Users of data who do not contribute somehow (whether data, funding, software, etc.) Vandals.

> [name=Guillaume]

Anyone who self-excludes, either passively or actively.

> [name=Joost]
> corporations are special guests - they are both part and not part of the community

> [name=Mikel]
> *

> [name=Paul]
> * Companies

> [name=Rory]
> * Companies, who are not humans, are not part of the community
> * Those who can't work well with others, OSM is a shared commons, we all own it, you don't get your little fief.

> [name=Tobias]
> * Anyone who does not contribute to OSM through their actions (contributions can be very broad, though, including development, usability feedback, bug reporting, organizing, marketing, ...)

### Whom does the community serve?

> [name=Allan] All OSM data users, including the general public, governments, legal persons using third-party apps based on OSM data.

> [name=Guillaume]
>
> Both its wider self and the project.

> [name=Joost]
> * primarily itself - non-contributors being able to use the data is a happy accident

> [name=Mikel]
> * It varies greatly. Some parts of the community serve their own needs, others serve a specific objective. That's the beauty of OSM -- many needs, common work.

> [name=Paul]
> The community serves itself

> [name=Rory]
> * The community is a collection of people, it doesn't *serve* anyone. It's there for it's own sake.

> [name=Tobias]
> * Each community member has their own reasons and goals, but as a community, we (should) serve humanity as a whole.

## Community Vibrancy and Health

### Very healthy and vibrant

> [name=Allan]
> * certain local chapters and communities, but not all

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Mapping!
> * Some local communities
> * SotM

> [name=Joost]
> several local groups
> some new folks getting involved in OSMF
> the Board :) +1

> [name=Mikel]
> * some local groups
> * applications using OSM data
> * our events (when they happen again)

> [name=Paul]

> [name=Rory]

> [name=Tobias]
> * Some local communities and events

### Somewhat healthy and vibrant

> [name=Allan]
> * poorly organized local communities lacking resources

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Usage of data in the most common use cases
> * Ecosystem of solutions built around the project, e.g. Overpass
> * Some software development, albeit in silos

> [name=Joost]
>
> [name=Mikel]
> * Some particular software projects that are somewhat disconnected from the core
> * educators working with OSM
> * researchers utilizing and studying OSM

> [name=Paul]

> [name=Rory]

> [name=Tobias]
> * Some specific tagging niches (railways, hiking routes, lane mapping, 3D)
> * 3rd party developer tooling

### Less healthy and vibrant

> [name=Allan]
> * DWG, which is overloaded
> * software development, which needs staff and policy guidelines
> * API, which needs to be worked on, and has no backup backstopping its principal volunteer developer

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Collaboration between different parts of the project. We almost ended up with three imagery indexes.

> [name=Joost]
> * the Advisory Board
> * some of the mailing lists; but mostly just some people messing it up
> * fracturing of channels
> * the core conversation

> [name=Mikel]
> * connections and ability to discuss and debate between different geographies
> * same for different types of contributors

> [name=Paul]
> Too many channels

> [name=Rory]

> [name=Tobias]
> * OSM website development
> * communication between across national/language boundaries
> * routing software development beyond basic functionality

### Not healthy and vibrant

> [name=Allan]
> * OWG and sysadmins, who are overloaded
> * communications -- too many channels
> * lack of communication between Board and others in the community
> * Foundation membership is too narrow

> [name=Guillaume]
> * Working groups - often overstretched
> * Relations between the board and the community (although Allan is improving things a lot!)

> [name=Joost]

> [name=Mikel]
> * Core software development communities
> * OSMF membership communication and debate

> [name=Paul]
> * Advisory board

> [name=Rory]
> * unbalanced for human demographics. Geographic etc unbalance

> [name=Tobias]
> * API/data model development

### Given the "visualisation" we have done, what are your 2 highest priority OSM community needs, problems or challenges to address?

> [name=Allan]
1. OWG and sysadmins are staffed well enough not to be overstretched. +1
2. Foundation membership is geographically more diverse, encompassing the globe.
> [name=Guillaume]

1. Help software projects work together by encouraging developers to collaborate on specific points and build bridges with other software. +1 +1
2. Support *all* working groups by helping recruit members and make it easier to get work done by helping technically and within the project. +1+1+1

> [name=Joost]
* find a way to build what the community needs
* set expectations for communication styles

> [name=Mikel]
> * Regional communities better integrate into the global conversation +1
> * The relationship between OSMF and companies is more usefully defined +1

> [name=Paul]
> Help all working groups grow to have capacity for their scope +1
> Promote a small number of open communication channels +1

> [name=Rory]
> * Create & Send more stickers & promotional materials (more CWG than board..)
> * Given people/groups money if it would help them do what they're doing (eg pay for translations) +1

> [name=Tobias]
> * There is a small number of open communication platforms that most mappers happily use. +1 +1 +1
> * The API and website are making visible progress again.

NOTES

Also need to be addressed
* Geographical distrust (Guillaume) +1
* Code of conduct (Rory) +1
* "Silenced voices" - problem of not really knowing for sure what community wants (Allan) +1+1
* How board can have direct relationship with local communities (Mikel) +1+1

--8<-cut-here---

> [name=Allan]

> [name=Guillaume]

> [name=Joost]

> [name=Mikel]

> [name=Paul]

> [name=Rory]

> [name=Tobias]

--8<------