[Osmf-talk] Balancing the presence of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team at the OSM Foundation in 2017

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 29 18:41:19 UTC 2017

The other part of perception is HOT is inc in the USA.  Donald's recent
tweets may not reflect HOT's views but the association maybe drawn by some.

Cheerio John

On 29 November 2017 at 13:29, Rihards <richlv at nakts.net> wrote:

> On 2017.11.29. 20:21, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 29 November 2017, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >>> [...] Merely
> >>> having an affiliation DOES NOT represent a conflict of interest. A
> >>> conflict of interest only arises when a topic is being addressed
> >>> where a board member has an interest in the topic stemming from their
> >>> outside affiliation that may not align with the interest of OSMF.
> >>
> >> I am no expert on conflicts of interests but i think this is not quite
> >> correct.  As i understand it a conflict of interest exists based on the
> >> possibility of an undue influence of a secondary interest, not just if
> >> such an influence is actually exercised in a meaningful way.
> >>
> >> My understanding is that even if you know/believe your secondary
> >> interests (for example as a Telenav employee) align perfectly with the
> >> interests of the OSMF on a certain matter or even if you intend to act
> >> against these secondary interests you would still have to recuse
> >> yourself from participation in a decision making process on matters
> >> where your employer has an interest in due to the possibility that
> >> these interests do not align perfectly and you might put these
> >> interests above your obligation as a board member.
> >
> > Correct, but there still needs to be a situation to give rise to a
> conflict of interest, as the Companies Act states clearly. Merely having an
> affiliation does not constitute a conflict of interest in and of itself.
> the biggest problem seems to be not a legal one, but more of the
> perception, the image. harsh reaction and bringing up the companies act
> might do the opposite - convince the concerned that their concerns have
> been valid and things are "legally clean but ugly".
> personally, i trust the HOT members in osmf, but i am concerned with the
> perception angle. as an example, what if all osmf board members were
> from HOT, would it make the concern more clear ?
> this might be a slight difference between the eu/usa viewpoints (sorry
> to other regions, i'm less familiar with the cultural nuances there).
> european contributors sometimes view usa as a very corporate-centered
> place with little grassroots activity and volunteering, and HOT has been
> run more as a company, less as a community.
> the suggestion regarding the working groups was very interesting. if the
> HOT members who are on or are running for the board would explain why
> they are aiming for the board instead of contributing at the working
> groups (where they might even be able to have a bigger impact), that
> might help to reduce the concerns that have been expressed here and
> elsewhere.
> > I think I caused confusion where I stated that the board has been able
> to self-regulate this. This may have implied that we rely on each other to
> call each other out on potential CoI. This is not the case, I trust my
> fellow board members to disclose when needed, and this has happened on a
> few occasions.
> >
> > Martijn
> > _______________________________________________
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> --
>  Rihards
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171129/3a798c5a/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list