[Osmf-talk] What's all this stuff about HOT, and how is it relevant for OSMF.

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 16:14:22 UTC 2017


Simon, thanks. I think there's a couple misunderstandings though.

> Heathers election platform essentially offers to (re-)form the OSMF (and
by extension OSM) just as you did HOT

I've seen nothing from Heather that suggests "reforming" OSMF and OSM.
Rather her vision fits nicely with the current course and ideas which the
Board and Foundation. Helping to engage more members and volunteers in our
efforts is something we all want.

> the humanitarian sector voluntarily  limiting itself to a presence of a
maximum of two seats on the OSMF board  (note a limit not an entitlement).
This should encompasses employees and equivalent of such organisations,
larger funders and organisations that derive a majority of their income
from such organisations.

So, there are currently zero people on the Board "from the humanitarian
sector". I don't know if this limit would be valid or not, but it's
definitely not relevant for the current election.

-Mikel

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
>
> Am 04.12.2017 um 04:21 schrieb Mikel Maron:
>
> Hey everybody
>
> A few notes, on all this discussion of HOT, and what’s actually relevant
> from that for the OSMF.
>
> Thank Mikel for clarifying this.
>
> It does show why it both current threads on osmf-talk are completely on
> topic, Heathers election platform essentially offers to (re-)form the OSMF
> (and by extension OSM) just as you did HOT. Hearing out to a certain point
> those that lost out in HOT due to such a course is just a part of
> determining if we want to elect somebody that is proposing a similar course.
>
> Now I'm not sure there is much point in hearing the nitty-gritty details
> of who did what, because in the end what does count, is that in the end an
> identifiable sub-group couldn't continue on working inside HOT, including
> the co-founder. That is quite OK in a startuppy kind of way (we can wait
> for the cinematic version in "The Humanitarian Network" :-)), but as you
> say it can not be a role model for OSM.
>
> Given the perceived need for strong leadership, clear command structures
> and responsibilities in the humanitarian sector that you describe, it is
> unlikely the the influence of the humanitarian sector topic will be going
> away and will continue to have the potential for lots of strife: what about
> the humanitarian sector voluntarily  limiting itself to a presence of a
> maximum of two seats on the OSMF board (note a limit not an entitlement).
> This should encompasses employees and equivalent of such organisations,
> larger funders and organisations that derive a majority of their income
> from such organisations.
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171204/d4e19691/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list