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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Nov 29 18:59:02 UTC 2017

Am 29.11.2017 um 19:45 schrieb Rihards:
> 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.

I don't think that anybody particularly associates Trump with the US
board members :-). There is naturally an issue. that particularly if you
believe that the board should be a representative body (not necessarily
a believe I hold) there has been a long time over-representation of
North America, mainly at the expense of Asia and developing countries.
But that is just one of many imbalances relative to the make up of our
overall community.

>> 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

-------------- 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/20171129/53923232/attachment.sig>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list