Hi Fran, Sorry, I'm going to jump in about non-profit law in the US and people are probably going to run off to go to sleep.
The reason the "Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Incorporated" is the legal name and not the HOT Foundation or any other variation is when you incorporate a corporation you need to have terms like "Incorporated" in the name. It has been a long time since we incorporated but this was specifically for the District of Columbia. This is the case for non-profit or for-profit corporations. Greenpeace when they operate in the United States is called Greenpeace Inc, but you don't see people walking around calling it Greenpeace Inc, they just call it Greenpeace. There is also a Greenpeace Foundation in the United States as well, I think their main reason for existing is to separate fundraising from actions. Doctors without Borders Inc. is MSF in the United States as well. Anyway the name doesn't relate to how the organization operates really. The OpenStreetMap Foundation for example is not a charity in the UK, but HOT is a charity in the US by tax standards. I think though Heather's point is there are better ways to communicate in global communities and maybe just creating another mailing list isn't the answer. Just because OSM does it, doesn't necessarily mean that it makes the most sense. Think about all the work HOT has done localizing OSM tool and making them work better in the environments where we help. I think this is the same thing, we strive to make OSM more friendly. Not this isn't a core statement in our mission, but it certainly is what happens. Thanks, -Kate On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Fran Boon <francisb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 July 2014 12:01, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > > support-but-not-control mission of the OSMF > > This is exactly what comes to my mind observing this discussion...I > would much prefer to see the HOT board being supportive rather than > trying to be controlling. > > > 1) We (OpenStreetMap) do draw a firm distinction between OSM and OSMF, > i.e. > > a broad community with fuzzy membership and a, well, bureaucratic > > organisation with with specific finite membership. In line with that, our > > osmf-* lists are only generated after broader discussion and may involve > > board sanction. Should HOT reflect that distinction in some way? > > I think this is the real nub of many of our community's current problems! > > Is HOT primarily: > (A) HOT Inc (like OSMF) > (B) Community (like OSM) > > Many here see HOT as primarily B with HOT Inc being present to provide > Support. > > It would be nice if HOT Inc were the 'HOT Foundation' which would > phrase it nicely & allow the distinction to be drawn more > easily....and drawing a parallel with the parent OSM... > > Best Wishes to all, > Fran. > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > HOT@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot >
_______________________________________________ HOT mailing list HOT@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
