On 11 July 2014 12:01, Michael Collinson <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
