[Osmf-talk] Balancing the presence of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT US Inc) in the OpenStreetMap Foundation

[Christoph Hormann]

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):

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team#Mission_Statement

does not mention OSM at all or refer to the OSMF mission

http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement

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 
member.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/