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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Dec 17 08:17:19 UTC 2018


Just a follow up on this, as it seems that the original context has got
a bit lost.

The question that this thread was revolving around was if the OSMF
should create a working group in the OSMF context to deal with
"humanitarian"  matters.

My point was and is, that the OSMF already did this back in 2010, well
at least the OSMF board seems to have been convinced at the time that
this is what they were doing and that separate incorporation was simply
a necessity for practical reasons.

If the conclusion is that HOT doesn't have this role then we obviously
need to set up a new organisation to handle such matters and take any
other necessary steps to rectify the situation, however I currently
still have hopes that the relationship between the OSMF and HOT can be
regularized, that HOT can function as that WG for "humanitarian" affairs
for the OSMF and that such steps are not necessary.

In summary, there is nothing "anti-HOT" there, just a suggestion that
the skeletons in the closet might need to be addressed in the best
self-interest of HOT itself.

Simon

PS: and HOT is HOT Inc US in this context, not OSM mappers contributing
to "humanitarian" projects in general.

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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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/20181217/155f241b/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/20181217/155f241b/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list