<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Responding to Tobias, <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">In the interests of good governance I
do support each WG adopting consistent Conflict of Interest (COI)
rules. We could provide a template to assist in this process.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Some comments on the Board rules and
DWG rules follow:<br>
<br>
I don't like the DWG putting in an external hyperlink to
third-party rules that we do not control. I'd prefer our own good
definitions to be directly incorporated into the definitions
section. The Board rules already define COI pretty well and do
mention family members without defining them.<br>
<br>
The DWG rules refer to a "case" that someone is involved in. OSM
is not a legal firm. A COI will normally only arise if the group
is making a decision that materially affects the interest of one
or more parties. Can we refer throughout to "decision" instead of
"case". The Board rules refer to a "COI situation", which is IMHO
a bit vague.<br>
<br>
I would tidy up the DWG wording and make the four bulleted points
more explicit by adding in all the implied words and leaving out
the hyperlink. <br>
<br>
If we align with the Board rules, then the DWG rules should say
that a conflicted member must declare a possible conflict to the
group. The group should then vote on the significance of the
declared possible conflict and decide if the COI is material (or
not). If the COI is material to the decision, the member can be
silenced or in serious cases, fully excluded (recused). Whatever
the outcome, the declaration and WG decision should always be
minuted. <br>
<br>
Note that the conflict of interest hyperlink in the DWG rules
doesn't jump to the relevant paragraph. Its section 182 if you're
interested. In any event, Section 182 does not define what a
conflict of interest is. It defines other stuff. That's a big
gap. We do need to define a COI properly in WG rules, or point an
internal link to our existing internal definition in the Board
rules. <br>
<br>
And a suggestion for the DWG - under International disputes, the
citizenship of a DWG member and their family members, not only
their place of residence, should trigger a possible COI.<br>
<br>
HTH</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Craig Allan<br>
<font size="-2">OSM: cRaIgalLAn</font></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2020/09/18 19:42, Tobias Knerr
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b55c93bf-71b5-23d1-dae9-1f931f5ce7d1@tobias-knerr.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hi all,
a few months ago, the OSMF board adopted rules on conflicts of interest¹.
Most of the Foundation's work happens in working groups or special
committees rather than on the board, though. Some of these groups have
existing rules, such as the DWG Conflict of Interest Policy², while
others do not.
The board has been deliberating whether such groups should also be
subject to rules on conflicts of interest, and if so, how these rules
should look. We are interested in hearing your thoughts on this topic!
Yours,
Tobias
¹
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Conflict_of_Interest_Policy</a>
²
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy</a>
_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>