’‘
‘‘Nicolas’s reply on Pete’s CoI question from his oral answer at the Members special meeting:’’ ‘‘
On CoI at large: ‘‘
I think that the first paragraph of my candidate statement answers the questions related to the French Association Projet EOF (which does not operate through paid work and relies mainly on the voluntary contribution of its members ; low level of activity in recent years) as well as my working relationship (various paid work as a freelancer ; not a Board members position); the above-mentioned paragraph reads right below, specific questions are answered further below ‘‘
“I want to state that in so doing, I have no conflict of interest (CoI) with HOT US Inc and the other organizations I co-founded since then and in which I am currently engaged. I have been working as a freelancer for many organizations including the French association Les Libres Géographes (LLg) that I co-founded and of which I am not a Board member. Whilst not holding a formal continued work contract with LLg, I checked with my LLg friends and Colleagues/Board members that serving a 6 months term at the HOT US Inc Board would be compatible with my engagement in LLg. I did what other hotties did prior to me in such occasions (Dale Kunce at the American Red Cross [ARC] or Jorieke Vyncke and Pete Masters at Medecins Sans Frontières [MSF]). Shall a CoI situation apply, I’ll comply to the HOT US Inc CoI handling policy like other former Directors who were staffs of other organizations or freelancers working in this domain. Furthermore, my engagement within the French association Projet Espace OSM Francophone (Projet EOF) does not constitute a CoI neither. The association carries out its activities (which mostly revolve around local OSM animation) via the voluntary contribution of its members while its Bylaws exclude paid work (in French “prestation de service”) from its resources.” ‘‘
‘‘
On MSF specific CoI handling policy: ‘‘
I think it’s important to distinguish the hic et nunc, this election and the mid/long term. In this run-up, I based my CoI situation analysis on HOT US Inc specific policy and practices. On the long-run, HOT US Inc shall act to learn from MSF whose high moral standards are of a unique value in the humanitarian action and aid development worlds. MSF’s policy might be reviewed and analyzed by our Governance Working Group. We might seek lawyer’s assistance (via paid or pro bono services). We might also reach out and consult OSMF LWG to get feedback and have them equally learn and think through MSF policy and practices. This Governance WG work shall be opened to any Voting member interested in the matter. Ideally and eventually, these efforts will result into a report and recommendations as per changing or not HOT US Inc CoI policy. This shall be shared with the membership as part of a consultation featuring discussions over email/Slack and BigBlueButton as well as anonymous survey. Shall the outcome resulted into a changed CoI policy banning my presence at the Board, I’d have no other choice than being compliant with our policy and resign. ‘‘
‘‘
On the web presence of the French association #LesLibresGeographes (LLg): ‘‘
LLg had been operating through direct contacts with funders and partners relying on the quality work it had been providing in OSM, Open Data and Free Geomatics across the Francophone area (mainly France, Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa). ‘‘

Thanks Pete, Yury and Eric for your comments.

Pete you are right, the text was not specific enough, I’ll clarify it.
Prior enforcing a CoC We shall work the issue of violence in communication within the existing OSMF policy (Etiquette) since it has not been used so far up to its full potential.
I think that this election discussion and the mobilization around the Call to Take Action created in the community more awareness if not a new ethos which most likely will result into more attention to actual/potential violence in communication. This may change positively our conversational style. Shall an issue arose, it’s more likely to be pointed out and to trigger this open informal collective moderation process we witnessed around Frederik’s post. Shall this informal collective moderation does not work out, then the formal moderators will act following our Etiquette. Prior moving to CoC, we shall give collective intelligence powered by this new ethos with the backing of full usage of our OSMF etiquette and tools its chance and we shall learn from this experience.
Meanwhile, we shall also deepen our understanding and keep building evidences around past cases of violence in communication across OSM as well as document experiences of CoC enforcements. We shall analyze and think through these materials. This shall contribute in return to more intelligence in our conversations, in informal collective moderation and in the action of formal moderators.
Shall violence in communication persists despite these efforts, then we can cautiously move to something new. In so doing, we would have trust human intelligence, we would have tested our Etiquette and tools, we would have a thorough and fact grounded shared understanding of the phenomenon, we would have the basis for a non (or a less) controversial move towards the adoption of CoC withing a less divided membership and community.