<div dir="auto"><div>Again I wasn't around for those early days and only know first hand the story I've participated in since 2012.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">All of HOTs 990s (US NGO tax paperwork) are online you can see that for years HOT wasn't and still isn't a money making venture. Yes HOTs finances are in a stable place but that is because of hard work by many volunteers and staff over the years to build a solid functioning NGO that actually supports emergent mapping communities. HOT, the NGO, continues to prudently reinvest in the OSM community and tools to acheive it's stated goals. It's not some giant money making scheme that it's made out to be.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Bluntly, I'm tired if HOT being used as the boogyman on the OSM lists. I'm tired of the anti-humanitarian vibe of these list serves by a small group of very loud and active posters. I'm tired of being told that my mapping or opinion doesn't count because I have a non-European centric view of OSM and I wasn't around at some magic gathering in a pub 14 years ago. That just because I got paid to do OSM I'm somehow less.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">For OSM to grow we need many mappers, many communities, many partners. The constant othering of folks that don't conform to your magic ideal of OSM is old and tired.</div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 16, 2018 10:50 AM, "Simon Poole" <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch">simon@poole.ch</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>To be blunt: MIkel was a board member of the OSMF at the time and
had a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the OSMF, just as
the other board members, naturally. I fail to see how protecting
said interests would have any impact on what contributors could
map, where they could engage themselves and what kind of
activities they should support.</p><div class="signature-text"><br>
</div><p></p><div class="signature-text">
<p>Simon<br>
</p></div><div class="elided-text">
<div class="m_5858047920185003090moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.12.2018 um 19:35 schrieb Dale
Kunce:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">From my perspective, and I wasn't around during
the early days, OSMF basically abecated it's responsibilities
for the type of mapping HOT and other humanitarian groups do. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">It's constantly said that OSM is a do-acracy.
Mikel and the other early HOT mappers did. They stepped up
into a niche area that was underserved and did the hard work.
We shouldnt be angry that others were drawn to supporting this
type of work. We should celebrate and support it however we
can. This is the type of direct community building we want for
our project to be successful.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I 100% support OSMF getting more involved in
supporting local mapping communities through partnerships with
those groups best suited. Sometimes this will be HOT other
times it will be with another local group. I'm happy to share
effective models we've implemented in the past few years.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 10:18 AM Simon Poole <<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Am 16.12.2018 um 18:43 schrieb Frederik Ramm:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> On 12/16/18 18:13, Simon Poole wrote:<br>
>> If one tries to piece together the history of HOT,
at least from an OSMF<br>
>> point of view*, it is very clear that HOT was sold
to the board by Mikel<br>
>> at the time as ""our department" for humanitarian
work". <br>
> Well - it is quite possible that, at the time, everyone
was happy not to<br>
> have to deal with humanitarian issues and that, at the
time, it *was* a<br>
> good idea to simply let folks run with it. <br>
<br>
Well that was the selling part, I believe it is fair to say
that the<br>
board members at the time had been convinced that this
separate<br>
organisation was a really good idea. But ...<br>
<br>
> Considering how big HOT has<br>
> become, I'm quite happy that they're not an OSMF
working group, or else<br>
> we'd have a constant case of the tail wagging the dog
;)<br>
<br>
... there is this small question of money.<br>
<br>
I know of at least one occasion during the time we are
discussing in<br>
which, being nice here, funding opportunities were diverted
to HOT and<br>
multiple later on in which interested donors were pointed to
HOT,<br>
without the OSMF receiving a single cent. Any reasonable
agreement on<br>
the establishment of HOT would have, a) laid down the rules
on how the<br>
name can be used, and b) required that a suitable
percentage, likely<br>
something between 10-20% of the funds received would go to
the OSMF as<br>
partial support for the infrastructure HOT was building its
not<br>
unsuccessful business on.<br>
<br>
Now we do actually have the tail wagging the dog in that the<br>
organisation that was built with money that rightfully
should have at<br>
least partially gone to the OSMF is trying to outstrip the
OSMF in every<br>
aspect.<br>
<br>
Simon<br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> I don't envision the OSMF running huge aid projects.
But it could<br>
> probably work to reclaim the "general interest in
humanitarian mapping"<br>
> as a core OSM(F) activity, while leaving the concrete
execution of<br>
> projects to bodies like HOT. It all depends on people
willing to do it.<br>
><br>
>> * I've done that mode than once, and always end up
wondering what the<br>
>> board was smoking at the time.<br>
> I can say with confidence that no smoking of anything
has happened<br>
> during the in-person board meetings that I was part of.
(At least not<br>
> while we were in session.)<br>
><br>
> Bye<br>
> Frederik<br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 16, 2018 10:18 AM, "Simon Poole"
<<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">simon@poole.ch</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="m_5858047920185003090quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="m_5858047920185003090quoted-text"><br>
Am 16.12.2018 um 18:43 schrieb Frederik Ramm:<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> On 12/16/18 18:13, Simon Poole wrote:<br>
>> If one tries to piece together the history of
HOT, at least from an OSMF<br>
>> point of view*, it is very clear that HOT was
sold to the board by Mikel<br>
>> at the time as ""our department" for humanitarian
work". <br>
> Well - it is quite possible that, at the time,
everyone was happy not to<br>
> have to deal with humanitarian issues and that, at
the time, it *was* a<br>
> good idea to simply let folks run with it. <br>
<br>
</div>
Well that was the selling part, I believe it is fair to say
that the<br>
board members at the time had been convinced that this
separate<br>
organisation was a really good idea. But ...
<div class="m_5858047920185003090quoted-text"><br>
<br>
> Considering how big HOT has<br>
> become, I'm quite happy that they're not an OSMF
working group, or else<br>
> we'd have a constant case of the tail wagging the dog
;)<br>
<br>
</div>
... there is this small question of money.<br>
<br>
I know of at least one occasion during the time we are
discussing in<br>
which, being nice here, funding opportunities were diverted
to HOT and<br>
multiple later on in which interested donors were pointed to
HOT,<br>
without the OSMF receiving a single cent. Any reasonable
agreement on<br>
the establishment of HOT would have, a) laid down the rules
on how the<br>
name can be used, and b) required that a suitable
percentage, likely<br>
something between 10-20% of the funds received would go to
the OSMF as<br>
partial support for the infrastructure HOT was building its
not<br>
unsuccessful business on.<br>
<br>
Now we do actually have the tail wagging the dog in that the<br>
organisation that was built with money that rightfully
should have at<br>
least partially gone to the OSMF is trying to outstrip the
OSMF in every<br>
aspect.
<div class="m_5858047920185003090signature-text"><br>
<br>
Simon</div>
<div class="m_5858047920185003090quoted-text"><br>
<br>
<br>
><br>
> I don't envision the OSMF running huge aid projects.
But it could<br>
> probably work to reclaim the "general interest in
humanitarian mapping"<br>
> as a core OSM(F) activity, while leaving the concrete
execution of<br>
> projects to bodies like HOT. It all depends on people
willing to do it.<br>
><br>
>> * I've done that mode than once, and always end
up wondering what the<br>
>> board was smoking at the time.<br>
> I can say with confidence that no smoking of anything
has happened<br>
> during the in-person board meetings that I was part
of. (At least not<br>
> while we were in session.)<br>
><br>
> Bye<br>
> Frederik<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="m_5858047920185003090elided-text">
_______________________________________________<br>
osmf-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>