This blog post is not about what you likely think it is about based on the title. I am not going to analyze the structure of the formal membership of the OSMF with its (based on the latest numbers) 2696 members.

I want to discuss things more from a perspective of organizational sociology here. With the given premise that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is an organization (which it quite evidently is – although i will discuss later quickly also the possibility that it is not) – one of the basic aspects of an organization is that it has members. Members of an organization tend to be people who

• are involved in the organized and planned pursuit of the goals of the organization in a sustained form.
• follow the formal and informal rules of the organization in doing that.

A clear distinction between members and non-members is a fairly fundamental aspect for an organization to be – well – an organization.

Now the OSMF has – as mentioned – a formal membership as required by British law. What i want to put into question here is that this membership actually constitutes the members of the organization in a functional, sociological sense.

Because there is hardly any indication these days any more that the formal members of the OSMF are more involved in the work of the OSMF than the OSM community in general. And there is also no indication that the formal members at large in any way feel bound by the formal and informal rules that apply to those more deeply involved in the OSMF.

This has not always been that way. Back in the earlier days of the OSMF (5-10 years ago) the formal members were much more involved in the organization. There was frequent open discussion of OSMF matters like policy development on the osmf-talk mailing list and on open community channels – which has almost completely vanished today. In terms of participation of the formal membership in formal processes this downward trend is also clearly visible in the participation in the board elections.

But of course, if the formal members of the OSMF are not actually the members of the organization any more, then who is?

The most well defined group of people that could be seen as actual members of the organization are those involved in the work of the organization somewhat more long term. These are essentially

• The board members (elected by the formal membership for 2-6 years)
• The members of the working groups (self-recruited by the working groups)
• The members of appointed bodies/positions like board commitees or other panels/committees (in most cases de facto life time appointments by the board)
• The employees and long term/recurring contractors of the OSMF

Does it make sense to see these (and only these) as the members of the OSMF rather than the formal membership? In my opinion it does. Some might see this as a pointless academic distinction, but for me this re-thinking of the structure of the OSMF made it much clearer why certain things in the OSMF work the way they do.

My impression is that the development towards this more narrowly defined de facto membership of the OSMF coincides with the board significantly weakening in its de facto influence on the organization. That is partly due to the board, in recent years, being fairly dysfunctional and being unable to make meaningful policy decisions and develop binding strategic guidance for the organization. But partly this is also because within the de facto membership the board lacks legitimacy since it is elected by the formal membership, who are predominantly de facto outsiders of the organization and who had no say in selecting the de facto members.

At the same time it seems the OSMF board is increasingly reluctant to source expertise in and consult with the larger formal membership and the OSM community, likely either because they feel this would be an affront to the de facto membership (which they largely recruited) and would make them and the organization look weak, or because they, themselves, consider these essentially outsiders of the organization.

If this trend continues (and i see very little reason why it would not) that likely means that de facto power within the OSMF will increasingly shift towards individuals or informal interest groups within the sketched de facto membership. Ultimately, it is likely that the board itself in a way becomes an outsider within the organization – being formally in control (and, in particular, also carrying the responsibility), but de facto being dependent on the true insiders of the organization in everything they do.

Now the other, more radical, way to look at this is to consider the OSMF might not be an organization at all, but a project in which independent actors loosely cooperate in pursuit of their respective goals. And the formal structure of the OSMF with formal membership and board would just be a front for that. I do not consider this a suitable model though. Not because i see a high degree of organized pursuit of distinct goals within the OSMF as a whole, but because of the fairly distinct organizational culture within the OSMF that i have also criticized in the past. The carriers of that culture are not the formal members though (who are much more diverse) – which likewise supports my suggestion to re-define the de facto membership as sketched.

I don’t think there are any specific conclusions that necessarily derive from this perspective on the OpenStreetMap Foundation. But – as indicated above already – i think looking at the OSMF this way helps quite a bit understanding the social dynamics within the organization and between it and the larger OSM community.