<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Just a follow up on this, as it seems that the original context
has got a bit lost.<br>
</p>
<p>The question that this thread was revolving around was if the
OSMF should create a working group in the OSMF context to deal
with "humanitarian" matters. <br>
</p>
<p>My point was and is, that the OSMF already did this back in 2010,
well at least the OSMF board seems to have been convinced at the
time that this is what they were doing and that separate
incorporation was simply a necessity for practical reasons. <br>
</p>
<p>If the conclusion is that HOT doesn't have this role then we
obviously need to set up a new organisation to handle such matters
and take any other necessary steps to rectify the situation,
however I currently still have hopes that the relationship between
the OSMF and HOT can be regularized, that HOT can function as that
WG for "humanitarian" affairs for the OSMF and that such steps are
not necessary.</p>
<p>In summary, there is nothing "anti-HOT" there, just a suggestion
that the skeletons in the closet might need to be addressed in the
best self-interest of HOT itself.<br>
</p>
<p>Simon</p>
<p>PS: and HOT is HOT Inc US in this context, not OSM mappers
contributing to "humanitarian" projects in general.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.12.2018 um 20:35 schrieb Dale
Kunce:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CADOF=4+41eRg4k-aWYTLB6ymdDbLWb9OPW+BhR=Xc+JAPZW=ZQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>