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

Joseph Reeves iknowjoseph at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 15:21:32 UTC 2017


Hi Simon,

"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."

I'm afraid in this case you are mistaken:
https://www.hotosm.org/projects/indonesia-0

The organisational structure could arguably be reflected clearer on the
website.

Cheers, Joseph



On 30 November 2017 at 15:16, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
>
> 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> 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> 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> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2017.11.29. 20 <2017.11.29.%2020>: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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> osmf-talk mailing list
>>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20171130/acf8448f/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list