[Osmf-talk] Balancing the presence of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team at the OSM Foundation in 2017
dale.kunce at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 00:08:24 UTC 2017
HOT is more structured about our mapping and about how we fund the mapping
for a few reasons:
1. the areas we traditionally map have little or no local community.
2. we work closely with and invest in growing local OSM communities,
through teaching best practices, financial grants, equipment grants, etc.
3. the areas we map are usually completely blank, and require a
structured approach to build the map up to current OSM standards.
4. we work closely with partners who have more structured data needs to
improve certain aspects of the map to better support their own projects.
The above is not easy and requires that we are a more structured. We've
learn hard lessons that being more casual about this does not lead to
success for us or our partners. Having a group like HOT is good for OSM and
OSMF. HOT fills a crucial role in the OSM ecosystem and compliments OSMF
and the various corporate partners. Casual mappers are good and critical to
the success of OSM. One does not have to come at the cost of the other.
One thing I think about a lot when the conversation of HOT being somehow
separate from OSM is what would the map look like. What would happen if all
of edits ever made by HOT were reverted overnight? What would the map look
like if all of the technology created by HOT to do its humanitarian mission
and help the OSM community didn't exist? My answer to the above is the map
would not be better, we as an OSM community would not be better off. The
same questions could be asked of any larger sub-group within OSM and the
the answers would be the same. We are better off with the collective
experience and skills of everyone on the project.
Lastly, I would hazard to say that most HOT mappers view themselves as OSM
mappers that happen to do humanitarian mapping more than the other way
Understood. I'd be curious if we could figure out a way to measure/track
both (OSMF membership and OSM as a whole). Especially guessing that both
metrics are probably out of whack and not representative as the world as a
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
> Am 29.11.2017 um 21:57 schrieb Dale Kunce:
> Lots of people here have expressed an interest in having geographic
> diversity on the board. Maybe this is cart before the horse. I'm curious
> what the metrics are behind the actual membership is made up of. I know
> that we don't have demographic data for OSMF members but do we have at
> least a country or regional breakdown. Maybe the first step is to start
> actively recruiting more OSMF members in under represented areas.
> Just so that words don't get put in my mouth: I was referring to "our
> overall community" not the OSMF membership which may, or may not show a
> similar distribution as actual mappers (we simple don't know). Depending on
> ones stance, that may or may not be desirable.
> PS: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/f/fa/Continental_
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>> Am 29.11.2017 um 19:45 schrieb Rihards:
>> > On 2017.11.29. 20 <2017.11.29.%2020>: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
>> > 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 <2017.11.29.%2020> <tel:2017.11.29.%2020>
>> <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
>> >> >>> where a board member has an interest in the topic stemming
>> from their
>> >> >>> outside affiliation that may not align with the interest of
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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
>> >> >> where your employer has an interest in due to the possibility
>> >> >> 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
>> >> 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
>> >> from HOT, would it make the concern more clear ?
>> >> this might be a slight difference between the eu/usa viewpoints
>> >> to other regions, i'm less familiar with the cultural nuances
>> >> european contributors sometimes view usa as a very
>> >> 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
>> >> they are aiming for the board instead of contributing at the
>> >> groups (where they might even be able to have a bigger impact),
>> >> 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
> sent from my mobile device
> Dale Kunce
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk