[Osmf-talk] Some questions about candidates' statements

[Nuno Caldeira]

Hi Peter,


CoI are a major concern as i explained on my questions. There's no need for
rules of CoI from my perspective, common sense and basic values of not
mixing things up shouldn't need to be written. Sadly seems to be different
in the USA as everything seems needs to be written to be followed. Take as
example ODbL " notice resonable calculated to anyone that views or
exposed", self explanatory, doesn't need to be interpreted as "attribution
is not written on ODbL on how it must be displayed.

In my reply about CoI, i mentioned that i'm a Mapillary ambassador and that
if ever a issue arises, i step down from that discussion. About my work, as
explained i work for a municipality with GIS, i do not use OSM at work
neither add municipality data to OSM. Again, common sense and honesty.

CoI from my perspective is worrying as some companies are not only OSM data
consumers, but also OSMF corporate members. Some of which, as it's public
for way too long, are not good citizens, especially regarding the
attribution, share alike and the Global Logic incident (which is the
"mother company" of one of the corporate members of OSM". Quote: "We expect
Corporate Members to conduct themselves as good citizens of the
OpenStreetMap ecosystem, e.g. by complying with our attribution
requirements (Licence and Legal FAQ
<https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ>),
following good editing practice and adhering to the community's guidelines,
such as the Licence/Community Guidelines
<https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines> and
the Organised
Editing Guidelines
<https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines>."  as in
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Corporate_Members


Às 23:10 de 05/12/2019, Peter Barth escreveu:

Hello candidates,

I read through most of the questions and statements and I have a
few follow-up questions, especially in the topic of CoIs which
has a high significance for me.

My definition of a potential conflict of interest:
A potential conflict of interests arises, if there is a topic at
board level where the interests of the OSM project and your
employer *might* differ.

I pay tribute to anyone who's able to put the project up-front
other interests and I won't insinuate for any candidate that you
wouldn't be able to do so.

It is good if you can distinguish between OSM's view and your
employer's view. It is better if there is no possibility to
ask the question "is this your opinion or your employer's".

Imho, even a *potential* CoI should always lead to you stating
your CoI, making your input/comments public and abstaining from
voting.

Do you agree with my statement or description of CoI/potential
CoI? How would you cope with a CoI? How with a potential CoI?
Especially will you take part in discussions? Share
arguments,...? Public only? Private? Will you participate in
votes? Will you make your CoI public? Will you make a potential
CoI public?

I am specifically interested to hear an opinion of anyone
directly or indirectly working for or with OSM or GIS data.


Further, I have some more specific questions for Steve that I am
interested in:

1. What is wrong with the current petition regarding term limits?

2. How many board meetings did you attend within the last three
years? And what was the painful part in those?

3. To help me scope your concern: What percentage of OSM tiles
are served to third parties today?

4. Do you know why OWG is kept short on budget and did you talk
with them if and how they could use that extra money?

Thanks,
Peda


_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing
listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20191206/d73d447d/attachment.html>