As far as I can tell, OSMF has no relationship with the technical development of OSM. https://blog.openstreetmap.org/about/

It's not clear to me whether you're looking for strategic sinergies, recruitment pools or what else. If sinergies, I don't see how to select names without first selecting things to achieve, nor I'm interested in changing non-Wikimedia goals. If pools, then the list should be merely determined by responsiveness.

@Nemo_bis, I agree with your assessment. We are talking about strategic partnerships, which should be based on alignment of goals, and such goals should be identified in the first place, yes. Listing names of projects with ongoing collaborations is useful to start breaking the "loop of undefinition" mentioned in the description.

Interesting: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikim%C3%A9dia_France/D%C3%A9marche_partenariale/en

Perhaps helpful: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FLOSS-Exchange.

The Open Knowledge Foundation could be another candidate. Now they have a CEO who is a former Wikimedian: http://blog.okfn.org/2015/04/29/open-knowledge-appoints-pavel-richter-as-new-ceo/

Is this project expecting to be related to the [also not yet very clearly defined] "movement partners" affiliation model? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Movement_Partners

No, I think they are completely orthogonal. In fact, this framework should be useful especially for those organizations that are not "movement partners", neither have or want to have any type of special relation, affiliation, etc. Just like an API, this framework should allow them to come, contribute, take whatever they want, come back again whenever they want, etc. Lightweight and with almost zero overhead.