[Osmf-talk] Balancing the presence of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team at the OSM Foundation in 2017
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Thu Nov 30 15:16:49 UTC 2017
Am 30.11.2017 um 15:35 schrieb Joseph Reeves:
> Hi Simon,
>
> There is only one HOT, and no other incorporated HOT entities in other
> countries, as such I would refer to the 501(c)(3) organisation as
> "HOT" or "Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team".
>
Well say HOTOSM Indonesia for example seems to exist, difficult to tell
if they are formally incorporated at a distance, but in any case they
are obviously a separate entity.
> "HOT the fuzzy group of people that have edited in the context of
> tasks put on the task manager" are people I call "individuals" or
> "OpenStreetMap users". For example, I may donate to Oxfam, or do some
> light volunteering for them, but that does not make me part of "Oxfam
> UK inc".
>
Sure, except that Oxfam dosen't use "Oxfam" to refer to everybody that
has donated to the organisation ever, if they did there would be exactly
the same need to differentiate.
Simon
> Other organisations that use OSM for their work, such as ProjetEOF,
> Map Kiberia, Map Lesotho, are involved in similar work to HOT, but can
> be differentiated by name. As I like to say, the letter T in HOT (the
> /team/), suggests that other teams are available; a football
> tournament with only a single team is not going to be good on TV.
>
> Cheers, Joseph
>
>
>
> On 30 November 2017 at 14:16, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 30.11.2017 um 14:25 schrieb Joseph Reeves:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The other part of perception is HOT is inc in the USA.
>>
>>
>> It's a long practised technique that if you want to be critical
>> of HOT you refer to them as "HOT US inc". This is, in my opinion,
>> just soft racism. The idea is that I'm British, and HOT is
>> incorporated in the USA, so it's different to me and I must be
>> constantly reminded of that fact. Of course, people that persist
>> with using the full "HOT US inc" will simply claim that all
>> they're doing is using the proper, complete name, although they
>> know perfectly well that such labelling is not required and is
>> not used with other 501(c)(3)s.
> Given that there are a) incorporated HOT entities in other
> countries, and b) we are discussing "HOT the company incorporated
> in the US", and not "HOT the fuzzy group of people that have
> edited in the context of tasks put on the task manager", how would
> you then prefer for people to refer to "HOT the company
> incorporated in the US"? I don't care what, as long it is clear
> what we are talking about.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>>
>> HOT's US incorporation is not an issue to the OSM ecosystem, but
>> people will insist on reminding me that HOT is somehow foreign to
>> my European way of life.
>>
>> We can demonstrate this quite easily; I encounter with many
>> non-British people in everyday life, and I often refer to these
>> people in conversations with others. If I was to mention their
>> nationality every time I discussed them ("hey, has the Romanian
>> delivery driver dropped off my parcel yet?"), I'd be labelled a
>> racist before the end of the day.
>>
>> Donald's recent tweets may not reflect HOT's views but the
>> association maybe drawn by some.
>>
>> By "some", do you mean "racists"? "Hey the US President is
>> tweeting foolish things so, by virtue of their US-ness, HOT the
>> organisation must also believe foolish things"? I think that's a
>> stretch even for these mailing lists; at the very least it's not
>> helpful to suggest.
>>
>> Cheers, Joseph
>>
>>
>> On 29 November 2017 at 18:41, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>> 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.
>>
>> 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > osmf-talk mailing list
>> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>> --
>> Rihards
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171130/37ce7e9a/attachment.html>
-------------- 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/20171130/37ce7e9a/attachment.sig>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list