[Osmf-talk] Conflicts of interest (was Re: [2022 board election] Candidates' answers and manifestos published)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

20 lis 2022, 00:36 od mxn at 1ec5.org:

> Vào lúc 14:52 2022-11-18, Dorothea      Kazazi đã viết:
>
>> The official questions by Michael Collinson were based on questions bythe community and from previous years. The community questions are here:>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Foundation/AGM2022/Election_to_Board#Community_questions_to_OSMF_board_candidates,_upon_which_the_official_set_will_be_based
>>
>
> Thanks to all the candidates for taking the time to respond to this extensive questionnaire. As a voting member, I appreciate this effort because it allows candidates to present a broader picture of their involvement and thinking around OSM, not just the parts we tend to talk about day to day.
>
>
> The responses to question 5, about > transparency and conflicts of interest <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM2022/Election_to_Board/Answers_and_manifestos/Q05_Transparency_-_Conflicts_of_interest>> , raised some questions in my mind. After chatting briefly with Mateusz in OSMUS Slack, I’d like to give him an opportunity to clarify his response to this question before the membership here.
>
> Mateusz Konieczny writes:>  
>
>
>
>
>>
>> This is probably not relevant in OSM, at least for now, but I want to mention >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order>>  which were issued for example in UK or USA, including bans on ever saying anything about being served with one.
>>
>>
> I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make by mentioning gag orders, which can only be issued by courts of law, in the context of a question about conflicts of interest. If you’re insinuating that the UK judiciary could be covering up a conflict of interest against the OSMF, then the Foundation has far more serious problems than I imagined. Perhaps there was a confusion with a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), which in some cases could prevent its subject from speaking out about its existence.
>
>
>
>
> I would like to know the scenario by which you theorize that a candidate might be compromised by a gag order or secret NDA to unduly influence the decisions made by the board
>
>
For start: you made me aware that it could be interpreted as casting doubts at other 
candidates, maybe some specific subset of them.

It was not intended this way and thanks for making me aware that it was possible
to read it this way.

That part would be likely removed in process of drafting/tweaking/removing not needed
parts if I would spend few hours more on writing answers.

> and whether you believe there’s a substantially higher risk of this scenario involving candidates from the United Kingdom or United States versus other countries.
>
not really, and this specific risk is not very probable

>  If this is not so relevant to the election, then I hope my fellow voters don’t read too much into this suggestive statement.
>
Especially as it was not intended as one (and if someone treats it as a real risk, then
it applies also to me).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20221120/ebc8e738/attachment.htm>