[Osmf-talk] OSMF 2017: HOT US Inc's candidate silences and partiality, organizational storytelling why this has to be limited at the OSMF Board [was Re: What's all this stuff about HOT, and how is it relevant for OSMF.]

Fri Dec 8 16:38:15 UTC 2017

Nicolas, you've stated your position a number of time on this list. Can you
respect the Etiquette guidelines [1] that were posted just a few days ago,
one of which is "If you've made your point already, you don't need to tell
us all again"

Thanks,
Clifford

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 8:31 AM, nicolas chavent <nicolas.chavent at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The OSMF Board election is coming to its end and our discussions
> rightfully channel positions, questions and facts about OpenStreetMap
> in all its aspects to the osmf list so that the membership makes an
> informed vote electing its two representatives at the Board to help
> supporting without controlling the project.
>
> Among other key discussion topics, these election talks rightfully
> feature the current influence of HOT US Inc over the foundation board
> and its increased influence shall Heather Leson be elected.
>
> Members (myself included) question Heather Leson run up as a matter of
> principle [1].
>
> Her OSMF agenda [2] and how it affects the election has been nicely
> summed up by Simon Pool:
>
> “It [“All that stuff about HOT and its relance to the OSMF election”
> Mikel Maron] 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.” Simon Pool.
>
> As it is normal for any candidate running in an election, Heather
> Leson’s agenda has been questioned with respect to her professional
> background in community management tied this to her four years of
> service at the HOT US Inc Board. Out of those four years, she chose to
> solely focus on her leading work to the delivery of a CoC for this
> organization [3] she views as a critical asset for OSM. Yet Heather
> Leson decided to excuse herself from answering clearly:
>
> - Why the presence of many “hotties” at the Foundation Board is
> beneficial for both organizations?
>
> - Why as a relatively newcomer to OSMF, she chose to run for the OSMF
> Board when serious and impact-full work can happen outside of the
> Board (Working Groups, Advisory Board…)?
>
> - Why as a HOT US Inc leaders she did not act and foster an internal
> discussion about HOT US Inc presence at the OSMF Board prior and after
> the 2015 OSMF election leaving HOT US Inc in Dec 2017, still without
> any position on the matter?
>
> - Why instead of favoring dialogue, she triggered a targeted use of
> CoC complaints to silent two out of many hotties (and OSMF members0
> who spoke in favor of diversity at OSMF in the 2015 election and act
> to remove one of these two from its Board position? [4]
>
> - Why she remained silent on May 2017 HOT US Inc CoC use case and my
> questions in these election times about candidate designation process
> and status of Conflict Of Interest (CoI) [5]?
>
> - Why she did not comment upon how she had been instrumental during
> her four years at the HOT US Inc Board working together with other
> leaders to build and enforce that “specific” culture in the NGO. This
> culture that singles HOT US Inc out from OSMF and other OSM
> organizations where Freedom of Speech, Transparency and inclusivity is
> more developed and membership more active and better informed than in
> HOT US Inc [6].
>
>
> This HOT US Inc specific culture is not without effects as shows
> Heather Leson’s “selective” indignation when it comes to “difficult”
> conversations over emails in this 2017 election. She is not without a
> paradox here. On the one hand, reacting to Severin Menard yet tensed
> but fact-grounded email, she strongly stated that “No one (full stop).
> And, No one, OSMF and OSM should be treated this way. We can do more,
> we can do better.”[7]. Sadly, she did not act upon Dale Kunce (HOT US
> Inc president) replies [8],[9] to my two messages documenting 2015 [4]
> & 2017 [5] disciplinary uses of CoC by HOT US Inc. I had been charged
> without the support of any facts as of today of having “bullyied”, of
> being “rude, [having] lied, [having] violated confidentially and
> conflict of interest policies, and [having] sought to split the HOT
> community [rather HOT US Inc members]”, having ”harass[ed] members”
> and of having proved my “ability to lie, disregard facts, and be
> hurtful to other members of the community [rather HOT US Inc members]”
> in 2014 and 2015 HOT US Inc Board Elections. That’s unfortunately not
> a surprise, Heather Leson, as a HOT US Inc member and director,
> repeatedly remained silent about similar emails of that kind shot at
> me during 2014 and 2015 elections. Yet. there is nothing in my 2015
> OSMF election emails [10],[11],[12] of the violence embedded in Dale
> 2017 OSMF elections libelous emails yet deprived of facts [8],[9].
> Strangely while my 2015 OSMF election emails [10],[11],[12] formed for
> Heather Leson enough ground to instantly trigger a HOT US Inc CoC
> procedure, Dale emails caused no reaction. Yet to quote her, as a
> candidate, one can minimally say that Dale “questioned the integrity
> of fellow members”. The same goes for the text of the CoC complaint
> produced by the HOT US Inc Board (see details in email [4]). One would
> have expect from Heather Leson to act by her own words and “do more
> and to do better” as both an OSMF member in 2017 and a candidate
> advocating for CoC in defense of minorities in the OSMF membership.
> The silence observed so far questions her ability to act impartially
> as an OSMF director in her future dealing with the OSMF members and
> OSM community members.
>
>
> It’s her choice to run for the OSMF Board without answering on facts
> from her past in HOT US Inc despite having put her four years at its
> Board where she made her way into OSM at the core of her manifesto.
> Although it’s her very own right, yet it’s detrimental for OSMF
> members knowledge of their candidate. It’s also puzzling as per her
> ability to handle and answer OSM members and OSMF membership
> questions, while the whole election discussions indicate that no easy
> topics and choices are ahead of us in the OSMF to keep building OSM.
> Such has been also her attitude in her past run-ups at HOT US Inc
> Board elections or on similar uneasy questions.
>
> Instead of hearing the candidate speaking directly, we have heard her
> supporters out of which Dale and Mikel Maron (Chair Of Voting Members)
> have been the more vocal. If Dale emails [8],[9] are illustrative of
> the violent HOT US Inc internal communication style, Mikel’s messages
> [13] are more subtle and allow to further describe the status of
> storytelling (and not history) in HOT US Inc as a membership control
> mechanism.
>
> One can read Mikel’s emails [13] as an attempt to create convenient
> smokescreens and not reply to:
>
> - a series of articulated facts-grounded thematic conversations which
> are descriptive of HOT US Inc
>
> - Dale’s emails [8],[9].
>
> Here’s how this works:
>
> First, Mikel persists in his denial of HOT US Inc influence at the OSMF
> Board.
>
> Second, Mikel strangely resorts to History in these conversations. We
> learned that he is working on writing an history of HOT. Weirdly this
> promise of his story of HOT US Inc in the making, seems sufficient in
> his own eyes to provide enough facts for things to (magically?)
> settle. Yet one has noticed:
>
> - Like Heather Leson (former HOT US Inc Board Officer), Mikel (Chair
> Of Voting Members) is silent on Dale (President) emails [8],[9].
>
> - No fact has been brought to the knowledge of the OSMF members on my
> 3 emails (HOT US Inc 2015 [4], 2017 [5] CoC disciplinary uses and its
> “specifics” organizational culture [6]) nor on Severin Menard detailed
> timeline of the NGO [13].
>
> Shall Mikel had been successful at producing his story of HOT US Inc,
> OSMF members would only have been provided by solely a one-sided
> version of the facts, his storytelling that is. A storytelling
> regardless of its merits is by no means an history of HOT US inc, and
> as such unlikely to settle things.
>
> For an history of HOT US Inc to be written, archives need to be
> opened, accessible and dealt with by "professional" historians along
> the requirement of History as a discipline. But this contradicts HOT
> US Inc information management practises and for given pieces of
> information (like personal contracts among other items) is unlikely to
> come forth anytime soon. Hence why a comprehensive history of the past
> of HOT US Inc is yet to come and that the past of its organization
> will only be accessible through fragmented sided possibly conflicting
> visions.
>
> Lastly there’s a form of paradox in Mikel Maron’s sudden interest in
> the osmf list for History. Internally in the hot membership list, he
> never shows any of such interest. Rather all elections or difficult
> topics in the organization have been systematically approached by the
> majority of HOT US Inc membership without any interest for things from
> the Past. Bringing up things from the Past, or timelines was harshly
> criticized as backward looking. As if an organization (or a
> collective) can shape and build a robust future overcoming its
> differences and difficulties without being cognizant of its past.
> That’s another reason why this “specific” HOT US Inc culture has to be
> limited in its influence at the Board of the foundation.
>
> Best,
> Nicolas
>
> [1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> November/004520.html
>
> [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Heather%20Leson/diary/42706
>
> [3]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xb-SPADtSbgwl6mAgglHMPHpknt-
> E7lKRoIcSbW431A/edit
>
> [4]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004576.html
>
> [5]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004590.html
>
> [6]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004740.html
>
> [7]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> November/004445.html
>
> [8]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004595.html
>
> [9]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004607.html
>
> [10]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2015-
> November/003500.html
>
> [11]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2015-
> November/003518.html
>
> [12]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2015-
> December/003603.html
>
> [13]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004716.html
>
> [14]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-
> December/004609.html
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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> 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> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nicolas Chavent
> Les Libres Géographes
> Projet OpenStreetMap (OSM)
> Projet Espace OSM Francophone (EOF)
> Projet GeOrchestra
> Mobile (FR): +33 (0)6 52 40 78 20
> Mobile (Bénin): +22962 55 85 91
> Email: nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
> Skype: c_nicolas
> Twitter: nicolas_chavent
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171208/03de7010/attachment.html>