[Osmf-talk] Humanitarian work (was: 2018 a third episode...)

[Dale Kunce]

>From my perspective, and I wasn't around during the early days, OSMF
basically abecated it's responsibilities for the type of mapping HOT and
other humanitarian groups do.

It's constantly said that OSM is a do-acracy. Mikel and the other early HOT
mappers did. They stepped up into a niche area that was underserved and did
the hard work. We shouldnt be angry that others were drawn to supporting
this type of work. We should celebrate and support it however we can. This
is the type of direct community building we want for our project to be
successful.

I 100% support OSMF getting more involved in supporting local mapping
communities through partnerships with those groups best suited. Sometimes
this will be HOT other times it will be with another local group. I'm happy
to share effective models we've implemented in the past few years.

On Sun, Dec 16, 2018, 10:18 AM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch wrote:

>
> Am 16.12.2018 um 18:43 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12/16/18 18:13, Simon Poole wrote:
> >> If one tries to piece together the history of HOT, at least from an OSMF
> >> point of view*, it is very clear that HOT was sold to the board by Mikel
> >> at the time as ""our department" for humanitarian work".
> > Well - it is quite possible that, at the time, everyone was happy not to
> > have to deal with humanitarian issues and that, at the time, it *was* a
> > good idea to simply let folks run with it.
>
> Well that was the selling part, I believe it is fair to say that the
> board members at the time had been convinced that this separate
> organisation was a really good idea. But ...
>
> > Considering how big HOT has
> > become, I'm quite happy that they're not an OSMF working group, or else
> > we'd have a constant case of the tail wagging the dog ;)
>
> ... there is this small question of money.
>
> I know of at least one occasion during the time we are discussing in
> which, being nice here, funding opportunities were diverted to HOT and
> multiple later on in which interested donors were pointed to HOT,
> without the OSMF receiving a single cent. Any reasonable agreement on
> the establishment of HOT would have, a) laid down the rules on how the
> name can be used, and b) required that a suitable percentage, likely
> something between 10-20% of the funds received  would go to the OSMF as
> partial support for the infrastructure HOT was building its not
> unsuccessful business on.
>
> Now we do actually have the tail wagging the dog in that the
> organisation that was built with money that rightfully should have at
> least partially gone to the OSMF is trying to outstrip the OSMF in every
> aspect.
>
> Simon
>
>
> >
> > I don't envision the OSMF running huge aid projects. But it could
> > probably work to reclaim the "general interest in humanitarian mapping"
> > as a core OSM(F) activity, while leaving the concrete execution of
> > projects to bodies like HOT. It all depends on people willing to do it.
> >
> >> * I've done that mode than once, and always end up wondering what the
> >> board was smoking at the time.
> > I can say with confidence that no smoking of anything has happened
> > during the in-person board meetings that I was part of. (At least not
> > while we were in session.)
> >
> > Bye
> > Frederik
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>

On Dec 16, 2018 10:18 AM, "Simon Poole" <simon at poole.ch> wrote:


Am 16.12.2018 um 18:43 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> On 12/16/18 18:13, Simon Poole wrote:
>> If one tries to piece together the history of HOT, at least from an OSMF
>> point of view*, it is very clear that HOT was sold to the board by Mikel
>> at the time as ""our department" for humanitarian work".
> Well - it is quite possible that, at the time, everyone was happy not to
> have to deal with humanitarian issues and that, at the time, it *was* a
> good idea to simply let folks run with it.

Well that was the selling part, I believe it is fair to say that the
board members at the time had been convinced that this separate
organisation was a really good idea. But ...


> Considering how big HOT has
> become, I'm quite happy that they're not an OSMF working group, or else
> we'd have a constant case of the tail wagging the dog ;)

... there is this small question of money.

I know of at least one occasion during the time we are discussing in
which, being nice here, funding opportunities were diverted to HOT and
multiple later on in which interested donors were pointed to HOT,
without the OSMF receiving a single cent. Any reasonable agreement on
the establishment of HOT would have, a) laid down the rules on how the
name can be used, and b) required that a suitable percentage, likely
something between 10-20% of the funds received  would go to the OSMF as
partial support for the infrastructure HOT was building its not
unsuccessful business on.

Now we do actually have the tail wagging the dog in that the
organisation that was built with money that rightfully should have at
least partially gone to the OSMF is trying to outstrip the OSMF in every
aspect.


Simon



>
> I don't envision the OSMF running huge aid projects. But it could
> probably work to reclaim the "general interest in humanitarian mapping"
> as a core OSM(F) activity, while leaving the concrete execution of
> projects to bodies like HOT. It all depends on people willing to do it.
>
>> * I've done that mode than once, and always end up wondering what the
>> board was smoking at the time.
> I can say with confidence that no smoking of anything has happened
> during the in-person board meetings that I was part of. (At least not
> while we were in session.)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

_______________________________________________
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/20181216/d91221d1/attachment.html>