[Osmf-talk] Balancing the presence of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT US Inc) in the OpenStreetMap Foundation
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Sat Nov 28 14:22:44 UTC 2015
On Saturday 28 November 2015, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > As HOT-member I do have a problem with other HOT-members explicitly
> > expressing distrust in the other members in being able to act in
> > the best interest of the larger OSM-community and be a member of
> > HOT at the same time.
> Apparently HOT have some way of obligating their members to act in
> the interests of HOT (at least that's what has been hinted at when
> someone says something in public and is then threatened with a
> code-of-conduct process). If you're on their board of directors, that
> might even be a legal obligation.
> At the same time, if you're on the OSMF board, there's clearly a
> legal obligation to act in the interests of OSMF, based in the UK
> companies act.
One interesting thing here is that the HOT mission (which seems to be a
central element of the membership code):
does not mention OSM at all or refer to the OSMF mission
as being part of its objective. This does not automatically result in a
conflict between these in individual questions but any HOT member
running for the OSMF board should be aware that in some points the
goals of these two diverge - which is exactly what my question
regarding conflicts of interests on the wiki is about. This kind of
conflict on a basic level is not something you can manage by recusing
yourself from individual decisions.
Or in other words: I think when you run for the OSMF board as a HOT
member you should make clear you put the OSMF mission above the HOT
mission and i am not sure if this is reconcilable with being a HOT
More information about the osmf-talk