English version based on an automatic translation with Deepl.
My (almost certainly) final post on the issue of FOSSGIS membership dues.
As expected, yesterday’s virtual general meeting of the association approved the increase in dues. The only change adopted compared to the board’s proposal regarding individual memberships is that the reduced fee is no longer intended for members who are not employed, but rather for members whose financial situation requires a reduced membership fee. The specific wording is:
The member decides on their own responsibility whether their financial situation requires a reduced membership fee. To do so, an informal notification to the board is sufficient.
The on their own responsibility part – which I had discussed – was already the case until now, but previously one had to claim to not receive a work income in order to qualify for the reduced membership fee. Now, one must claim that their own financial situation requires it.
As far as I know, FOSSGIS is thus the only local chapter of the OSMF that makes the membership fee dependent on financial need. Whether that’s a good idea is certainly open to debate.
Although there were certainly some expressions of support for the proposals I made, ultimately there was no substantial interest among the members present to actually turn them into a resolution or to vote against the increase. The vote on the membership fee regulations that were adopted ended with 52 votes in favor, 3 against, and 7 abstentions.
I had already outlined my assessment in the first discussion of the OSMF membership dues saga that FOSSGIS is at a decisive point in its development. And I had underscored this once again in another comment by pointing out the path dependence. I believe this decision on the direction to take has now been made, even though it has essentially been looming since at least 2020.
I think the overall concern with this direction is very clearly illustrated by how volunteer work is viewed from within the club. The central argument for raising membership dues continues to be that there is a perceived lack of willingness to volunteer, and therefore the belief that the club’s goals can only be pursued sustainably through paid work. At the same time, however, the idea of structuring membership fees in a way that demonstrates appreciation for precisely this kind of volunteer work- as I proposed in my draft – is rejected. This is essentially textbook path dependence. This is particularly noteworthy when one considers how much volunteer work is done in the OSM community as a whole – completely separate and independent of FOSSGIS and other organizations – which clearly shows that there is no general lack of willingness to volunteer within the OSM community.
In any case, the association has set the course, and we have to deal with it. For my part, I have decided to let my FOSSGIS membership expire at the end of the year. However, I want to emphasize that this is my personal decision and does not constitute a recommendation to others. Everyone must decide for themselves. I can completely understand if others see FOSSGIS as a useful platform for pursuing their interests. And as I explained in my response to Frederik’s comment on the first post in this series, I can also understand if FOSSGIS, as an organization, deems it necessary for its members to submit to the organization’s collective decisions and rules. For me, this simply doesn’t fit with the image I have of OpenStreetMap as an open social project in which I volunteer.
When I first outlined my idea for a significantly different approach to membership dues in April, it was clear to me that – in the unlikely event that FOSSGIS were to actually implement something like this – I would be compelled to become a supporting member, because anything else would have been rather hypocritical. Interestingly, in the discussion about this aspect of my proposal, the central argument – which no one but me seriously contested – was that members would not voluntarily pay more than necessary, and that pressure, or at least a nudge, is necessary to get them to make higher financial contributions. This view, of course, fits well with FOSSGIS’s role as an advocate for its members’ interests, where everyone is ultimately concerned first and foremost with their own individual interests. The idea that FOSSGIS could also develop a different self-concept – one in which people come together and organize not primarily on the basis of shared interests, but on the basis of shared ideals and values, and where members are free to decide whether to support these ideals and values through volunteer work or financial contributions – this idea did not seem to be on anyone’s radar among those present.
And despite all the criticism I repeatedly voice about the OSMF – when it comes to the structure of membership dues, the OSMF presents itself quite differently to its (current and potential future) members.
Incidentally, it has also become clear to me that in OpenStreetMap, we are by no means required to become members of the local chapter that is, so to speak, geographically responsible for us. Like FOSSGIS, most OSMF local chapters do not require that you come from or live within the local chapter’s geographical area of responsibility. So we are all free to become members wherever we feel the organization is the best fit for us.