TL;DR: I want to complain about the moderator (the same warned early) on #communities:br which already in conflict of interest by his employee is using the forum to incentive others to hide content which can be used to know further information to reveal if actions of a proto-working group is doing could be or not a crime in Brazil. Also, on Mapeamento Aberto para Gestão de Riscos - reunião para conversar sobre o assunto - #30 by EvertonBortolini, the moderatior implied that even contacting the person might break the forum rules; to be fair, I’m even suspecting that cited names may either not exist or not be aware their name was used in the minutes, so this is a reason to further believe that any average user of this forum could be harassed by certifying if what’s coordinated by the moderator is true or not.
To start, I will also ping both @WarpathPeacock and @apm-wa (they’re from Moderation Committee) and point to the public reply from the OpenStreetMap Foundation board that they need to give me access to content previously mentioned in the suspension I had early this year, as described here https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2023-04#On_availability_of_content_used_for_moderation_decisions_to_the_people_being_suspended_on_OSMF_channels,_prior_to_an_appeal. I will also preventively request all content from me, involving Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Inc, which could become deleted from public view after that suspension and also allow to have a backup copy in a way that could grant its authenticity to be usable as evidence if submitted in criminal investigation. Note that this is not about “protecting OpenStreetMap brand”, but can serve as proof that “pessoa jurídicas” with clearance and natural persons (e.g. researchers in Brazil from civil defense organizations) if become involved in crimes could be simply because were made believe that an external actor to the country sponsored the actions.
As context, emergency response in Brazil is closest to how it is done in the USA (or any country following the Protocol I but with strong component on leadership still in control of military with a mix of civil government, so the Europeans here can assume is not far different than in your country, however HOTUSI does not operate in Europe) than Haiti, the “Republic of NGOs” which somewhat is the book reference on how HOTUSI was born and to this day despite billions of foreign aid is a failed state that not even HOTUSI do maphatons anymore. This means that not only the leadership of emergency response is the role of government/military, but INGOs/NGOs (even Red Cross and UN agencies) have “pessoa jurídica” and comply with laws related to money transferring and, obviously, other local laws. And how any “pessoa jurídica” is formalized, in addition to having lower taxes in case of some NGOs, this restricts what operations can do. Getting a “pessoa jurídica” for roles related to civil defense is obviously far stricter, and this also applies to certain operations that deal with receiving money from the government or military. This explain why (similar to how I assume any company, NGO or not, even in Europe), do not advertise a service which is stricter regulated in own region because this could lead to close the company.
So, what’s the recent deal? Well, a recent wave of hidden messages on #communities:br stated after on this thread…
…become clear that the HOTUSI doesn’t even have a “pessoa jurídica” in Brazil, so is not even about having specific authorization to operate or not. This alone is a red flag since this can be used to make it harder for local authorities to require response as part of investigations. If any crime is discovered (not only, but as example, lack of proper authorization to coordinate roles) by the formal authorities, those who would be affected are the companies or natural persons either paid or convinced to join this, so yes, is from the Interest of Brazilians to know HOTUSI doesn’t have a CNPJ in Brazil. The first wave of flagged content from me is not even (at least not yet, but maybe would be argued later that I cannot attach a email picture on the forum because the moderator forced be to send email, not replied that they don’t have a CNPJ) about lack of CNPJ of HOTUSI, but my comments related that the role of civil defense leadership in Brazil is the government+military, not NGOs, not even international NGOs. So, the major reason to me to ask @forums-governance to suspend the moderator on Brazil which is also a employer of HOTUSI is by recent, consistent attempts to incite mass flagging, to censor the my comments which are, at minimum, suspecting warnings in which HOTUSI can be discovered eventually to not be authorized to operate in Brazil by formal investigation. There’s several other moderators, but it is not my lack of extra existing moderators on #communities:br
Not sure if I would need to make a formal request to the working group related to trademark of OpenStreetMap (but anyways, I will ping @Mateusz_Konieczny and also 2 who sometimes correct attempts to HOTUSI appears to represent OpenStreetMap, @SomeoneElse and @SimonPoole). But I kindly ask anyone here who could edit this wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Pt:Grupo_de_Trabalho_em_Mapeamento_Aberto_para_Gestão_de_Riscos_de_Desastres/Reunião_1 and add some note to warn that “Hub de Mapeamento Aberto para a América Latina e Caribe do Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team (HOTOSM);” is not formally endorsed by OSMF as local representant OpenStreetMap. I prefer to not involve myself in edit wars in the Wiki, however the way other Brazilians and organization are contacted in Brazil to join the working group, the fact of contain “OpenStreetMap” on its name and be be on the Wiki can be perceived as “be official” representant in Brazil, which is both misleading and can further damage OpenStreetMap trademark in case of investigations evolve in concrete forms and actions become public. Actually, even without formal formal investigations, calls to action to volunteer on OpenStreetMap could become alerted as scam by local municipalities, similar on how they already do when money is asked to help people affected by disasters, so the distinction still relevant.
What I can affirm immediately is the following: at least part of what’s used as a showcase for HOTUSI volunteering platform and this proto working group to operate in Brazil is flawed . The cited names of the persons who supposedly visit one of the affected cities (e.g. what’s on the link for the wiki) was not recognized by the civil defense coordination of that region (and I have this by email). The same cited person also mention be together in that city with to evaluate the situation and get data from affected population with members of CEMADEN (a federal level agency) which aren’t viable to confirm if these are really from CEMADEN, but anyway it’s named coordinator wasn’t acknowledged by the true coordination of local civil defense. Also, all local NGOs (either mentioned in the wiki, or that typically work with HOTUSI in Brazil, so they could appear in future) aren’t the ones of with the kind of CNPJ (the Brazilian number for companies) that can coordinate emergency response. The implication is if neither HOTUSI have authorization do it alone with his own “pessoa jurídica” and cannot prove the parts of government/military branches focused in civil defense are involved (and know that are involved, government can sometimes delegate work, but this only is done in advance, with security clearance) then this is reason for authorities in Brazil to investigate, since this is a red flag that organized group already impersonated coordination of civil defense (aka government/military). And by the way, they’re saying in public that planning to do it again.
That’s what I have to say. Even if I got suspended again by the Moderation Committee, instead of dedicating time defending from tone policing, it is far better for me to continue helping the local authorities. The bizarre is that even others in that group complained about data from the mapathons not be usable by civil defense (who don’t know Portuguese, use automated translation), which further justify my complain to suspend the moderator, because of his attempt to imply rules of the forum of unsolicited messages to allow cross communication between the persons.