[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 16:26:33 UTC 2017


Martin

While I disagree that HOT has any influence on the current OSMF Board
.. I totally agree that your suggestions for governance models are worth
considering, and could result in a better functioning Foundation.

This is why I've been excited to help organize "Local Chapter Congress" at
SotM in 2016
  https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mikelmaron/diary/40882
and that it was repeated in 2017
  https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Local_Chapters/Congress_201708

I'm also excited to see how the Advisory Board develops.

None of these ideas answer all the questions, but I do think provide good
input for shaping how we go forward.
Where this should happen within the Foundation is a good question. We did
have a Strategic Working Group for a time
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Strategic_Working_Group

-Mikel


On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:59 AM, <martin at noblecourt.eu> wrote:

> Thanks Mikel, very useful, looking forward for the next episodes (couldn't
> help but notice an early presentation at our GeOnG... 2008!)
>
> I would also like to use this thread to point back at what is (IMHO) the
> real question at stake here: the composition and election of the OSMF board.
>
> Basically, the core concern many express here is that one organization
> from the OSM ecosystem (HOT) has too much influence on the board and thus
> on the OSMF.
> As I already put forward, my long-term solution for this would be to have
> a board (also) representing local chapters rather than mere individuals.
> But this could also be extended to any other organization evolving in the
> community like HOT but also companies like MapBox, universities, or any
> other major stakeholder.
> I don't have a comprehensive proposal for it but it could be envisioned
> that the board includes both representatives of the individuals members
> (elected here) and representatives of local chapters and partners/members
> organizations (currently OSMF only allows "corporate members" that are
> sponsors, but there could be also a space for non profit organizations like
> NGOs and universities; for instance CartONG is as an organization a member
> of OSM France), with a pre-defined number of seats for the different
> groups. It wouldn't probably be 1 chapter (or 1 partner) = 1 board member,
> but since they are already in the Advisory board, they could choose
> representatives there to go to the board.
>
> This is just a suggestion and potentially too early given the low number
> of official local chapters (and the lack of official status for other type
> of partners except corporations). Frederik's question after my last email
> where also very relevant and show the limits of my current proposal. This
> discussion would certainly need more thoughts, potentially via a dedicated
> working group or directly by the newly elected board? However, I'd be
> interested to see the candidates' position on it.
> (I'm not adding a question on the Wiki since this is basically a
> clarification/extension of my previous question)
>
> Going in this direction would, I think, clarify who is representing
> himself (as an individual) or his organization and alleviate certain
> suspicions that are constantly polluting the debates.
> OSMF has grown too much to just rely on the personal trust between a
> handful of passionate people (a bit sad, but also a sign of success), but I
> feel it's membership is still too narrow to represent OSM as a whole. Hence
> my suggestion to better represent the ecosystem.
>
> Finally, I don't have the technical background to assess his
> proposals/concerns, but I support on principle Darafei's questions about
> the technical infrastructure, this should indeed by the first priority of
> OSMF.
>
> Best
>
> Martin
>
>
> 04/12/2017 15:51, Mikel Maron wrote:
>
>> I think having a comprehensive description of your side of the story
>>>
>> would indeed be very useful.
>>
>> Thanks. It's going to take some work! To start, I do put together a
>> history from 2005 to the start of the Haiti response in 2010
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZyLZpz5XBA [3]
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/History [4]
>>
>>
>> Next would be to look at 2010 - 2013, when HOT registered an
>> organization and formalized, and began to engage with the requirements
>> to run field operations.
>>
>> -Mikel
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:03 AM, <martin at noblecourt.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Mikel,
>>>
>>> I think having a comprehensive description of your side of the story
>>> would indeed be very useful. Séverin made the effort to describe
>>> his point of view, it would be fair that yours would be developed
>>> publicly since you were nominally criticized there.
>>> I understand it must be tiresome for parties involved to relive
>>> again and again the same conflict, however I'm thinking of the many
>>> OSMF members that weren't HOT voting members when this all happened
>>> (including me) on for whom all we get is secondary explanations.
>>> This would also as you mentioned help settle this debate that seem
>>> to restart here and there regularly and disturb various OSM
>>> communities.
>>> Let's not forget a majority (I have no numbers but I would expect it
>>> is a rather large majority) wasn't directly involved in this
>>> conflict and has no will to see it deter the quality of the
>>> interactions in the broader OSM ecosystem.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 04/12/2017 04:21, Mikel Maron wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey everybody
>>>> A few notes, on all this discussion of HOT, and what’s actually
>>>> relevant from that for the OSMF.
>>>> I understand that this recent flurry of emails about HOT are
>>>> pretty
>>>> confusing. We all had the same audacious dream to bring
>>>> OpenStreetMap
>>>> to the humanitarian world, but we believed in different ways to
>>>> accomplish it. Whenever there has been a HOT election over the
>>>> past
>>>> four years, we’ve had these arguments within HOT. It’s
>>>> impossible
>>>> for me to discuss adequately without providing a tremendous amount
>>>> of
>>>> missing context in years of history in HOT -- going all the way
>>>> back
>>>> to when I first started developing the idea of OSM for disaster
>>>> response in 2005 (http://brainoff.com/weblog/2005/12/22/16 [1]
>>>> [1]). For
>>>>
>>>> those that are interested, and to hopefully head off repeating
>>>> these
>>>> discussions again in the future, I am working on writing up a full
>>>> public history.
>>>> For now, sufficient to say, Nicolas and Severin are upset that HOT
>>>> did
>>>> not take the direction they wanted. Both of them were employed by
>>>> HOT
>>>> and served on the Board. As an organization with partnerships and
>>>> contracts with humanitarian organizations, and that works closely
>>>> with
>>>> responders amidst disaster activations, I felt and still strongly
>>>> feel
>>>> HOT required clear lines of accountability for some key roles and
>>>> responsibilities within the bigger open community. This is
>>>> standard
>>>> for any organization operating in the humanitarian field at
>>>> anything
>>>> beyond small scale, and really most any organization anywhere in
>>>> the
>>>> world.
>>>> This is settled within HOT. I think it is unfortunate that the
>>>> largely
>>>> irrelevant fight continues in OSMF. There is no one standing in
>>>> the
>>>> way of their efforts with Projet EOF, which has had good results,
>>>> and
>>>> they can operate however they see fit. There is no monopoly of
>>>> working
>>>> with OSM in disasters and preparedness, and Nicolas and Severin
>>>> would
>>>> find support for their work from the broader community --
>>>> including
>>>> from me. HOT is just one of many interrelated organizations and
>>>> initiatives working to better the world within the OSM community.
>>>> So what about this is relevant for OSMF?
>>>> The main point of bringing up HOT seems to imply that the HOT Code
>>>> of
>>>> Conduct led to silencing over disagreements, and that the same is
>>>> a
>>>> risk for OSMF. However, HOT developed its code after the OSMF, and
>>>> the
>>>> starting point as we developed that policy was the OSMF very own
>>>> etiquette and moderation rules. Etiquette rules have not been used
>>>> unfairly in OSMF. And neither have they in HOT. A few are
>>>> understandably upset about that HOT was not shaped in their
>>>> vision,
>>>> but that’s a separate issue from the Code of Conduct.
>>>> The OSM Foundation serves a much different purpose and is very
>>>> different kind of organization than HOT. OSMF is the supporting
>>>> legal
>>>> entity at the nexus of the complex and multifaceted OSM community.
>>>> There are hundreds of individual members, tens of thousands of
>>>> mappers
>>>> and organizers, local groups in various states of organization to
>>>> very
>>>> informal meetups to formal Local Chapters in their own right,
>>>> developers companies and institutions working within OSM some of
>>>> which
>>>> are Corporate Members. In short, OSMF helps hold the enabling
>>>> environment for an incredibly diverse array of interests to work
>>>> together in the map. It’s pretty unprecedented, and very
>>>> different
>>>> from HOT.
>>>>
>>>> -Mikel
>>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>> ------
>>>> [1] http://brainoff.com/weblog/2005/12/22/16 [1]
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> osmf-talk mailing list
>>>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk [2]
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://brainoff.com/weblog/2005/12/22/16
>> [2] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZyLZpz5XBA
>> [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Humanitarian_OSM_Team/History
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171204/c361c606/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list