[Osmf-talk] 2018 a third episode of entryism by HOT US Inc at OSMF Board after 2015 and 2017: call 4 action (candidates/members) for a balanced OSMF Board

Milo van der Linden milo at dogodigi.net
Wed Dec 12 21:11:20 UTC 2018

I feel that I am a HOTtie as I have enjoyed helping out with mapping tasks
and during crises with a strong passion to do good.

I DO NOT, and do not want to be associated with HOT US Inc.

In my opinion, HOT is an inclusive, open and transparent community where
HOT US Inc. is not.

I would like to ask people to be clear about whether you mean HOT or HOT
Inc. and I agree this can be confusing.

Kind regards,


Op wo 12 dec. 2018 21:53 schreef Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de:

> On 12.12.2018 00:53, nicolas chavent wrote:
> > Tobias Knerr proposed in his manifesto to "Limit board members from
> > the same org to 1 seat", since this manifesto item has not yet been
> > picked up in the Questions/Answers section of the Board Elections wiki
> > nor in the discussions, it would be great to hear about it from the
> > other candidates and members.
> Thanks for your support! I would also be interested in the opinions of
> other candidates about this idea, as improving the representation of
> unaffiliated volunteers on the board is an issue I strongly care about,
> and I believe my proposed change could be an important step in that
> direction.
> Because your mail links this situation to a specific criticism of HOT,
> however, I would like to emphasize the following, as I've already done
> in my manifesto: I do not believe that any members of our community are
> acting in bad faith. Nor is this about members of HOT, or any other
> group, being instructed or obligated to act in a particular manner. None
> of that is required to care about the composition of the board, though.
> It's sufficient to recognize that our perspectives on OSM are inevitably
> shaped by our background, and if many or most board members see OSM at
> least partially through the lens of a particular organization or sector
> (such as humanitarian work), this is bound to have a tangible effect on
> the foundation's direction.
> OSM enjoys a thriving ecosystem today, with thousands of organizations
> making valuable contributions – large or small – to our project. In
> light of that, I believe that no single organization is so important to
> OSM on its own that it makes sense for its members to hold a majority,
> or even a sizeable minority, of the seats on the board. That's my
> motivation for making this suggestion. Having no more than one board
> member from the same org doesn't mean that the board is balanced, as
> Christoph and Simon rightly point out. But having several members of the
> same third party serving on the board is a clear sign that it is not. As
> such, I feel this would be a minimum standard for organizational
> diversity on the board that most members of our community should be able
> to agree with, which may not be the case for more far-reaching
> restrictions.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181212/d7268746/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list