The secondary interest could be for example […] maintainer role in an open source project
It would be nice if some guidance / clarification was provided for mere moderators role (as the document seems somewhat geared towards OSMF board / WG roles) in there somewhere.
E.g. one might maintain few dozen open source projects (many of them OSM-related). So it seems to me that if one was e.g. making moderation decision based on post where someone critiquing said piece of OSM software, that they should exclude themselves due to CoI from voting and/or taking moderation action themselves (leaving the decision to other mods), right?
However, would one need to in advance specify their affiliations on their profile page? (e.g. employed by HOT etc?) - I don’t think the document requires that (but seems to recall previous discussions where it was called for)
I agree. The document was clearly not written with moderators in mind, and as a result it’s not super obvious how to apply some of its rules to moderators. I’d like to note that the board decision was taken without input from the forums governance team, but we have to make sense of it to the best of our ability.
I interpret it along the following lines (quoting myself from a previous mods-only thread):
So if someone critiques your open source project, leave any related moderation actions to other moderators.
Yes. The section “Process for managing a Conflict of Interest” starts with a requirement to “list employers, directorships, and other similar affiliations […] if their organisation does business related to OpenStreetMap”. That’s before the part that starts with “When a Conflict of Interest arises”, so it applies prior to and regardless of any specific CoI cases.