Board/Minutes/Board/Minutes/2022-02-S2S/Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team

From OpenStreetMap Foundation
< Board‎ | Minutes
Revision as of 11:56, 14 April 2022 by Dorothea (talk | contribs) (+ title sentence)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Notes by participants. Might be enriched.

Define steps towards a formalized relationship with HOT

This session took place in parallel with "Parallel session: Identify more effective ways of getting foundation work done - Executive director". A summary was provided to the other group.

Attendees

  • Eugene Villar
  • Jean-Marc Liotier
  • Roland Olbricht

Not Present

  • Mikel Maron

Officers and board
Biographies

Post-meeting addition of background by Dorothea Kazazi.

Background

OSMF is currently talking with the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOT) and is working on a draft agreement regarding granting rights for the use of OSM marks.

Related (not exhaustive list)

Collaborative notes

The Licensing Working Group already works on the question of the HOT OpenStreetMap trademark

The amount of money sloshing around HOT makes it operate in a corporate-like fashion, unlike OpenStreetMap.

Personal histories cloud the perception of HOT from the European side.

Developing country contributors appreciate the top-down financial streams from HOT and Wikipedia. They don't understand why the OSMF doesn't operate that way.

Activities organized by HOT are many contributor's first contact with OpenStreetMap, resulting in superior mindshare.

As a result of HOT's dominant presence, OpenStreetMap as a free software project with purposes beyond providing data to NGO through paid projects is often lost on contributors.

HOT is particularly efficient in fundraising. OSMF would benefit from collaboration.

Joint fundraising might be a problem ? Rather coordinate.

HOT is nowadays the humanitarian opendata team. They are aware of the divergence between their current focus and carrying the OpenStreetMap brand. From our point of view, the privilege of the brand must be balanced with obligations.

Renaming HOT would be prohibitively expensive to them.

The OSMF would appreciate better promotion of the wider OpenStreetMap world, beyond the humanitarian space. We feel that HOT could put some effort to clarify that part of their trademark.

Suggestion: Have another meeting between OSMF and HOT boards?