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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Sun Dec 16 20:19:39 UTC 2018


You fail to see my point: it would have been completely possible to
create HOT in a fashion that protected the interests of the OSMF at the
time, and for reasons that are not completely clear that did not happen
and it is difficult to determine who did what (because the relevant
original documents are not available in an easily accessible fashion).

None of "doing it properly" would have likely had an impact on where HOT
would be now except for its relationship to the OSMF. 

Am 16.12.2018 um 20:35 schrieb Dale Kunce:
> Again I wasn't around for those early days and only know first hand
> the story I've participated in since 2012.
>
> All of HOTs 990s (US NGO tax paperwork) are online you can see that
> for years HOT wasn't and still isn't a money making venture. Yes HOTs
> finances are in a stable place but that is because of hard work by
> many volunteers and staff over the years to build a solid functioning
> NGO that actually supports emergent mapping communities. HOT, the NGO,
> continues to prudently reinvest in the OSM community and tools to
> acheive it's stated goals. It's not some giant money making scheme
> that it's made out to be.

I've worked for a non-profit in case you didn't know and when you
subtract the need to make shareholders happy in one way or the other
"for profits" and "non-profits" are not really that different. I didn't
offer an opinion on HOTs current financials (outside of saying that it
was successful), just that the organisation got kick started at the
OSMFs expense.

>
> Bluntly, I'm tired if HOT being used as the boogyman on the OSM lists.
> I'm tired of the anti-humanitarian vibe of these list serves by a
> small group of very loud and active posters. I'm tired of being told
> that my mapping or opinion doesn't count because I have a non-European
> centric view of OSM and I wasn't around at some magic gathering in a
> pub 14 years ago. That just because I got paid to do OSM I'm somehow less.

I think you would find that if the OSMF was an US organisation we
wouldn't be having this discussion because the relationship between HOT
and the OSMF would be very different.

>
> For OSM to grow we need many mappers, many communities, many partners.
> The constant othering of folks that don't conform to your magic ideal
> of OSM is old and tired.
>
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? It's the OSM
equivalent of pulling the "crying baby" card.

Simon

>
> On Dec 16, 2018 10:50 AM, "Simon Poole" <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>     To be blunt: MIkel was a board member of the OSMF at the time and
>     had a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of the OSMF, just as
>     the other board members, naturally. I fail to see how protecting
>     said interests would have any impact on what contributors could
>     map, where they could engage themselves and what kind of
>     activities they should support.
>
>
>     Simon
>
>     Am 16.12.2018 um 19:35 schrieb 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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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/c858be26/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/20181216/c858be26/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list