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

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.12.2017 um 18:14 schrieb Mikel Maron:
> > everybody can decide for themselves
>
> Amen!
>
> > that is all not true
>
> That's all true history, but I just don't think you know me well
> enough to know my whole history, and we're focusing on HOT because
> it's been (unfairly) made an election issue. 
>
> What I disagree with -- that I represent the humanitarian sector on
> the Board. Any more than I represent the UK community or craftmappers
> (I mapped an entire city by bicycle) or Mapbox (my employer) or the
> DWG (which I started) or State of the Map (which I am actively engaged
> in).
I specifically avoided using "represent", and wrote "..limiting itself
to a presence of a maximum of two seats .." to avoid yet another
discussion of if representation is a thing on the OSMF board. There is
no requirement to disclose any arrangements of any kind around standing
for election so in the end we don't and can't know except if voluntarily
declared.  What we can reasonably deduce is that the direct employers
are OK with it.

So the question is more: are you heavily involved in the humanitarian
sector or not?

Simon

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Am 04.12.2017 um 17:14 schrieb Mikel Maron:
>>     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.
>     Do I really have to start quoting page after page from Heather, I
>     suspect we've all already read her manifest, and everybody can
>     decide for themselves.
>>
>>     > 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.
>     Sorry you just linked to a piece with the history of HOT mainly
>     featuring you, made a longish statement that boils down to that
>     HOT was all your idea  and formed according to your vision, you
>     work for a company that, well it was actually you, announced
>     strategic alignment with HOT, you've worked professionally in the
>     filed, you hold a formal position inside HOT and are a voting
>     member and then you turn around and say that is all not true?
>
>     Simon
>
>>
>>     -Mikel
>>
>>     On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171204/97c11eb4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171204/97c11eb4/attachment.sig>