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

Joseph Reeves iknowjoseph at gmail.com
Sat Nov 28 15:43:30 UTC 2015

Hi Christoph,

>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

Running for the OSMF means that candidates wish to serve the best interests
of the OSMF. This goes without saying and I'm sure that all involved are
involved because they wish to serve the OSMF. It's probably worth
reiterating that HOT and the OSMF are not working towards different goals;
both wish to create a better map of the world. I think it's perfectly
normal that people will have an interest in both HOT and OSMF, but people
here, running for the OSMF, wish to serve the OSMF.

>and i am not sure if this is reconcilable with being a HOT

On this I couldn't disagree more. My status as a HOT Member means that I
have previously shown a commitment to the project, it does not make me a
decision maker or anyone of influence within the organisation. I previously
stated this on OSM-Talk:


Apologies to all: I meant to only reply to OSMF-talk, where such messages
are more useful, but got distracted this morning and replied in the wrong

I hope this furore can demonstrate one thing: People with a history of HOT
involvement may legitimately wish to become more involved in other areas of
the OSM ecosystem.

Cheers, Joseph

On 28 November 2015 at 14:22, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20151128/35c1e3c6/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list