[Osmf-talk] HOT US Inc use of Code Of Conduct (CoC) for Membership control after 2015 OSMF Board election
mikel.maron at gmail.com
Fri Dec 1 16:32:06 UTC 2017
I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the specifics of Nicolas and Severin cases publicly. As you can imagine, this is a very selective reporting of the history, and there is an extensive backstory which has not been discussed.
I will say, the facts remain, the overwhelming majority of the HOT membership has supported the Code of Conduct, and the specific actions taken in response to how Nicolas and Severin conducted themselves in HOT.
The purpose and process of the Code of Conduct as it is presented in this thread is not accurate. This is not about silencing criticism. Healthy dialogue includes and must have criticism. But this comes with a collective responsibility to build a good and productive space for the community and a need to respect others.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Friday, December 1, 2017, 10:53:08 AM EST, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de> wrote:
This to me looks like a valuable perspective and important context on
the inner workings of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team US inc. (i
think i got the name right this time). I had looked at the documents
available about the internal rules of HOT after the recent discussions
related to it myself and quite a few things about the procedures you
describe can be figured out from those as well (an i also concluded
that Severin Menard was likely expelled from HOT on grounds of the
CoC - you seem to confirm this).
It is probably not surprising to most people that what you describe to
be the practical functions/effects of the HOT CoC are often the primary
intentional effects of a CoC when it is imposed by a Corporation on
their public multidirectional communication activities (think of
facebook groups, a user support forum or some crowd sourcing project).
Preventing such activities resulting in communication that is negative
for the corporation in some form from the perspective of the leadership
of the corporation, ensuring a comfortable environment for high value
participants - if deemed necessary at the cost of taking actions
against troublesome, inconvenient and lower value participants, such
things are the main purposes of a CoC in such cases.
If the intentions for establishing the HOT CoC were similar is something
i don't know (and you do not seem to give any indication to that
either). But since most CoCs are similar in structure and wording it
is clear that most CoCs can be (ab)used to such purposes.
Regarding a hypothetical OSMF CoC - so far no serious advance has taken
place towards this. If such a thing happened the first things to
discuss would be the purposes of such a CoC and the scope where it is
meant to apply. Depending on what is the result of such discussion it
seems to me that given the nature of the OpenStreetMap project as a
global, decentralized multicultural community creating a morally
defensible CoC is likely an impossible task.
Something i have not figured out by the way is if the HOT CoC only
applies on HOT related matters or if it is meant to apply with
universal scope (i.e. if HOT members are required to follow it even
when doing things unrelated to their HOT membership). There are a
number of comments by HOT members in recent discussion on this mailing
list that i would deem in violation of the HOT CoC - but this assumes
the CoC applies to HOT members here - which i am not sure about.
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk