[Osmf-talk] Board response: Disputed Area Policy (Crimea request)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 07 February 2019, Mikel Maron wrote:
>
> By OSMF mission statement, I think you are referring to this phrase
>
> > the OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit
> > organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap
> > Project.

No, i am not, i am referring to the whole document:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement

> [...] This was simply an encouraging statement
> from the Board about the recent work on new ways to address disputed
> boundaries in the map.

No, as i said you as the OSMF board are expressing a desire in which 
direction you would like the OSM community discourse to develop and 
this way influence the discourse and taint the process.  Given members 
of the board have just a few days ago expressed concern that prominent 
voices in the OSMF create an inbalance in discourse here that is fairly 
ironic (and removes any credibility of that concern).

> [...] Should that work proceed (and I hope it does!) I
> can imagine many ways the OSMF can support. Not least of which might
> be deploying updates to software components. Or distributing a
> microgrant.

So to the expression of clear preferences of the board what it would 
like the OSM community to map (i.e. disputed boundary claims) you add a 
suggestion of bribery for doing as you desire.  Not to mention the 
implicit indication that microgrants will not be granted by an 
independent body but by the board.

> Or welcoming a talk or BoF at the State of the Map. 

So no hope for the SotM program being developed by an independent 
program committee without the board taking influence...

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/