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

Rihards richlv at nakts.net
Wed Nov 29 18:45:26 UTC 2017

On 2017.11.29. 20:41, john whelan wrote:
> 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.

if i got the reference right, that's an extremely long stretch that i do
not agree with, but acknowledge that it might be noticed by somebody.

> Cheerio John
> On 29 November 2017 at 13:29, Rihards <richlv at nakts.net
> <mailto:richlv at nakts.net>> wrote:
>     On 2017.11.29. 20 <tel:2017.11.29.%2020>:21, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>     >> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de <mailto: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

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list