[OSGeo-Discuss] Code of Conduct... followup to avoid lobbies

[María Arias de Reyna]

Hi,

I agree with Luigi in that we should be aware of this and have common
rules. I think this falls into the "common sense" that is not so common
once you start mixing cultures. I have also experienced this "I prefer to
have someone not from my company do this" to make sure everything is clear
and transparent while I saw other people not waiting for that. And, at the
same time, I have nominated a coworker not because he's in my company but
because I knew he deserved it.

So... where to draw the line? More complex rules? Trust an abstract "common
sense" that will differ depending on the individual?

Also, if there is no "rule" or "recommendation" about what to do about
lobbies... why would a company think it is bad to lobby inside OSGeo and
have members participating? Why would anyone think it is bad to have their
private interests pushing? I mean, for me it is clear but I understand not
everyone understands open software the same way. If you go to more
capitalist liberal cultures, you may found people thinking that the obvious
way to work is to have companies investing directly on their interests
through OSGeo, so pushing to have more power inside OSGeo to recover that
investment makes sense to them. It is another way of understanding open
software. A way I don't agree with, but who am I to say it is not valid...
unless OSGeo explicitly says so?

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:50 AM Luigi Pirelli <luipir at gmail.com> wrote:

> in my experience, "trust that they would speak up " is so strongly
> dependent on culture that I would prefer a rule.
>
> in this election I saw a company member propose a colleague, this for me
> is not ethically correct, but I shut up because who I'm I to judge the
> contribution of this nomination in his "dev" community or other OS related
> community?
>
> I remember all the time I spent waiting review of my PR from outside the
> company where I worked, because for me it's not ethical (and safe) that a
> colleague would review my work when this work affect all the rest of the
> world!
>

> btw for me no problem if "all" of us can live with this risks
>
> Luigi Pirelli
>
>
> **************************************************************************************************
> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
> *
> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
> * Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
>
> **************************************************************************************************
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 11:27, Hans Gregers Hedegaard Petersen <
> gregers at septima.dk> wrote:
>
>> Hi Luigi,
>>
>> Yes, I have a trust in our members, and also trust that they would speak
>> up their concerns if they saw a problem (of any kind) with a nomination.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 11:18, Luigi Pirelli <luipir at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> let me rephrase, your suggestion is that, with the actual rule, in case
>>> of "lobby", other member should rise the exception for a specified
>>> candidate?
>>> Luigi Pirelli
>>>
>>>
>>> **************************************************************************************************
>>> * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
>>> * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
>>> * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
>>> * Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
>>> *
>>> https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
>>> * Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
>>>
>>> **************************************************************************************************
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20181218/5da06ce4/attachment.html>