Latin America, OSM and humanitarian intervention

fititnt · 2022-10-18T08:15:22.184Z

I will come to this thread later and do a better reflection of the responses. But in the meantime I will give an idea how, despite actuality have issues, Latin America doesn’t trust foreigner Intervention, not even for aid, and rely on itself:

SpringerOpen

Understanding humanitarian localization in Latin America—as local as...

This paper questions the pertinence of the humanitarian aid localization agenda in Latin America, at least in the narrow sense embraced by the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit. Localized support has been the standard practice in the region for decades,...

You from Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team United States Inc still do not get the big picture where it is getting into. And I say this because the way the paid employees do express themselves and (I assume by inference) likely planning of contingency plans still assumes it is local OSM communities it’s challenging, it’s not: are the governments themselves. Here is not the republic of NGOs; the population assumes emergency response is the role of the government; relevant marathons would mean close contact with emergency response services.

The local governments already are users and experts contributors (just not organized edit). They believe OSM is important. The ground truth over political intent is a reasonable model at international level, maybe better than UN geometries for things changing fast. However, even by total lack of context, you’re both challenging neutral space at OpenStreetMap Foundation and at internal borders of these countries. These countries even have foreigner relations with the United States which is very, very careful to not upset the region. In other words: it is also realistic that even the United States could enforce cutting of funding of your organization.

Anyway, the link is packing A LOT of information very specific to Latin America. The one close to the foundations of what was the hopes for the mapping community was the Disaster Relief 2.0 (2011).

@woodpeck in my culture trying to appear to represent an organization which is not, or stealing someone else’s work, is morally reprehensible because it jeopardizes the hard work of existing communities or is a threat to common goods. Even part of the laws differentiate intentional from unintentional, so in the Hanlon’s razor duality, it is still expected to have strong ways to disencourage the behavior in special if from people expected to be an example for others. That’s why “ambiguity in texts” or lack of disclaimers affiliation which could reveal conflict of interest for others ALWAYS is reprehensible in my culture even when the person believes in her/his/they mind is acting in good faith. Ontologically speaking, this doesn’t apply to individual reality (like person’s gender identity, preferred name, the right to feel upset by something, etc), but shared reality (what affects the others) which what is in the head of a person (intent) is not sufficient.

@nukeador turns out I’m actually okay with changing the person’s name in the title by the role in the organization (“Community Services Associate”), just not sure if it will fit the URL. Also fix the openstreetNap. However, it does not change the fact that in the past it stayed that way for months.

nukeador · 2022-10-18T09:50:13.167Z

I’m moving your reply to a new topic since it open a very different discussion from the original one.

mapeadora · 2022-10-19T19:53:49.086Z

Hello everyone,

I’d like to add my perspective on this. I’ve been an OSM user and opensource lover and promoter for +10 years, based in Latam for more than that, and particularly sensitive to this question of ownership from locals versus from international institutions or other actors in general, and also people and “workers” acknowledgment in general for their role, even more being a woman. I’ve also been a spectator (from OSM community) from the other side of the world of the incident in the Philippines, which happened some years ago now and is out of context right now in this thread. I remember I read at his time explanations, the creation of space from HOT for dialogue with the OSM Philipines community o repair this awkwardness, as well as processes to avoid it could happen again, also read about OSM Philippines reacting positively to this dialogue and solution.
I work now at HOT, in Latam, and can say that this situation has allowed the organization to be much more conscious, and the direct result of that has been, specifically in Latam, to build the regional team by integrating people who come from OSM / opensource community and understand perfectly the needs, the vision and the communities want from such a hub, to shape its actions and strategies, and to be able to make the bridge. This approach from HOT and the willingness to improve on this side, is what has convinced me from the community to join. My participation there, and from the rest of the HOT Latam-team in development, is the effect of this strategy. You can read there how the starting plan is explained: Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team | Hub de Mapeo Abierto en LATAM - Actualización diciembre 2021.
I don’t know a lot of organizations based this way on a permanent synergy with local communities, looking for the best way to support their impacts, with data and knowledge. As (primarily) a member of communitiES myself, I can say I just give continuity at another and higher level to my engagements and the engagement of local activist sectors in the humanitarian/sustainable development/risk management/defense of the territory, etc., through HOT in Latam.

dieterdreist · 2022-10-26T14:47:44.881Z

fititnt:

@woodpeck in my culture trying to appear to represent an organization which is not, or stealing someone else’s work, is morally reprehensible because it jeopardizes the hard work of existing communities or is a threat to common goods. Even part of the laws differentiate intentional from unintentional, so in the Hanlon’s razor duality, it is still expected to have strong ways to disencourage the behavior in special if from people expected to be an example for others. That’s why “ambiguity in texts” or lack of disclaimers affiliation which could reveal conflict of interest for others ALWAYS is reprehensible in my culture even when the person believes in her/his/they mind is acting in good faith. Ontologically speaking, this doesn’t apply to individual reality (like person’s gender identity, preferred name, the right to feel upset by something, etc), but shared reality (what affects the others) which what is in the head of a person (intent) is not sufficient.

I can’t find from where this is quoted from, is it a quote from this forum?