[Osmf-talk] clarification of the AoA amendment on board committees

[Mateusz Konieczny]

If someone
- complains that attribution guideline was discarded
- reasons for discarding it was because critical parts looked
like written by Mapbox or Facebook lawyer
- mentions that it was consulted with unspecific "stakeholders"
 (likely corporations using OSM data that either want to present themself
as source of geodata or are outright in business of selling attention of their
users)

Then information that someone works for Facebook is relevant.

Sadly, we have no good way to distinguish "works for Facebook, contributes
to OSM on their own and it is unrelated to their employment" and 
"works for Facebook, can contribute to OSM because it does not conflict
with their job as their opinion are not against Facebook interests" and 
"is paid by Facebook to influence OSM as part of their job".

Dec 4, 2020, 08:17 by heatherleson at gmail.com:

> And the point is? Members are members. How about we focus on the AoA topics at hand? 
>
> People should not be targeted for 1. Having a job 2.contributing to discussions. Our code of etiquette does not state this explicitedly, but let's honour the spirit of collaboration.
>
>
>
> Heather
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020, 00:04 Christoph Hormann via osmf-talk, <> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> Just for info to those who don't know since the author of that message 
>>  neglected to tell you (ein Schelm wer böses dabei denkt...) - Michael 
>>  Cheng is working for Facebook.
>>  
>>  -- 
>>  Christoph Hormann
>>  >> https://www.imagico.de/
>>  
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  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/20201204/4557a7dc/attachment.htm>