Humanitarian OSM Team/Board Elections 2024/Candidate Responses to 2024 Official HOT Membership Questions
Notes
All questions were sent to the candidates in English and (TBD) (Translated via https://www.deepl.com). Candidates were encouraged to answer in a language that was comfortable to them, and should the responses need to be translated back to English, the Election Committee would do so, again using DeepL.
Candidates were provided the Official Questions from the membership here: Talk:Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Board_Elections_2024. While questions were separated by theme, there may have been some overlapping responses in some of these questions. Responses from candidates may be combined in their previous answers or may have chosen not to answer that particular question. Please read read all responses to get a better understanding of the candidate's thoughts.
Order
The ordering follows the order of Humanitarian_OSM_Team/Board_Elections_2024#Nominations_for_Humanitarian_OpenStreetMap_Team_Board_of_Directors.
Answers Per Questions
General
1. What do you see as the greatest challenge the organization is facing strategically, and as a board member, how do you plan on approaching these challenges? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | Strategically, HOT’s greatest challenge is balancing its ambitious goals with available resources. As we have all heard and witnessed, the financial landscape, particularly for non-profit entities and traditional fundraising strategies, has shifted dramatically. There is now significantly increased competition for limited donor dollars, along with a heightened demand for transparency, accountability, and evidence of impact; in other words, donors want to know, ‘How will my money be used, and what will be the tangible results?’
As a Director, I will collaborate with the other Directors and staff to explore all possible ways to increase fundraising. This includes developing specific tactics to target Millennials and Gen Z, who are rapidly becoming a significant portion of the donor base and who have different, more hands-on approaches to choosing where to donate. On the other side of this, we must ensure that we carefully evaluate the full costs of our programs and make informed decisions to improve our liquidity and reserves, allowing us to better navigate the fluctuations between more and less successful funding cycles. |
| Anni Beukes Response | The next big challenge for HOT remains telling its story in a compelling way to relevant communities and donors in the places and spaces where HOT can have the most impact. The past 3 years have seen significant and structural changes internally at HOT and also in the ecosystems within which HOT's operates and exists. I believe HOT is much better equipped and mature thanks to its hard working, dedicated staff and VMs, along with a Board that is more strategically focused. However we risk mission drift if we are unable to effectively communicate internally and externally what our impact, our values and value-add, and story for change is.
The Living Strategy Refresh process presents an opportunity to hone the story of HOT for HOT and beyond for the coming years. Participating, contributing, but more importantly listening to staff, VMs and other Board members during this process and supporting outcomes from it as best I can is one of my ambitions for another Board term. |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | I think the biggest challenge HOT is facing now is keeping up with the ambitious goals set during the Audacious period, and the transitions HOT needs to manage in terms of forecasting and fundraising. The approach of relying on philanthropic organizations as the main source of funding was good, but given the nature of HOT's work, it's difficult to rely on this as a long-term fundraising strategy.
As a board member, I will work alongside others to ensure a careful financial forecast is in place for our programs and advocate for a more diverse fundraising campaign. I don’t have a complete picture of what this might look like yet, but I believe that working together with board members, voting members, and staff, we can set the best strategy. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | As the Audacious grant starts to wind down, I think the challenge ahead will be how to sustain the maturity it has gained. HOT has gone through leadership transitions, strategic planning and operational adjustments, and now the focus has to sharply increase on raising funds to sustain the organization in the long run, while staying true to all the groundwork that has been set, and bringing all stakeholders along ( the community, voting membership, HOT Beneficiaries, existing and potential donors as well) |
2. How have you contributed to HOT's efforts over the past year? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | I remain highly engaged in the Activation Working Group (AWG), supporting the transition from a centralized Disaster Service team to one led by the Open Mapping Hubs. While each region is now successfully leading its own disaster response, there is still more work to be done. My focus is to help the hubs evolve into a collaborative team through the working group, aiming to empower local OSM groups and individuals to participate more actively in disaster response. This approach will ultimately lead to quicker, more effective, and impactful disaster mapping efforts.
Beyond my work with the AWG, my involvement in the Governance Working Group is more selective, typically focusing on significant issues, such as the current Appointed Director bylaws revision up for a vote. Although I did not see this revision as essential and questioned whether it might be more effective to simply recruit a greater diversity of skills within the Voting Membership, I felt it was crucial to ensure the revision was executed correctly if it were to pass. To this end, I have invested considerable time contributing to the bylaw wording and procedures. One of my key contributions was advocating for a change to prevent a majority of Appointed Directors, thereby preserving the majority for Elected Directors. It also was not easy to think through the transition itself so that we maintain staggered terms and minimal impact on the Directors who will be elected this term. If passed, I believe the revised governance framework (Bylaws Revision and Appointed Director Nomination Procedures) will be sufficient to support this significant change in our governance structure. |
| Anni Beukes Response | In the past year I have served on HOT's Board as Member-at-Large. I joined the GWG during the Bylaws revision. My focus has been to make connections for HOT and especially the African Hubs with organised local urban poor communities, as well as researchers working on urban climate change beyond HOT's historical academic and research support. |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | As I mentioned in my statement, I’ve been involved with HOT since 2015 as a volunteer and later in 2017 as a contractor for the Ramani Huria project in Tanzania. I became a HOT voting member in 2019, and at that time my relationship with HOT shifted, as I was working with OpenMap Development Tanzania (OMDTZ), a local HOT partner. Currently, my involvement with HOT is through my voting membership and as an active member of the community working group. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | I have served on HOT’s Executive Committee as a member at large, supporting the leadership and management team through decision-making on operational and financial planning - and continue to offer advisory support based on my experience leading a non-profit, and sitting on other non-profit boards as well. |
3. Do you see any potential conflicts of interest with you being elected to the Board position? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | I can for sure say that there is no ‘traditional’ (i.e. financial) Conflict of Interest, now that neither myself or my wife work for HOT. However, I would certainly be considered an “inside” candidate due to my previous employment, my past role as Chairperson of the Voting Members, and my over 10-year relationship with HOT.
I would like to take a moment to emphasize that although my staff position was eliminated, as I expressed in my exit letter, I am genuinely proud of the decision HOT was able to make. This outcome reflects the hard work that I, along with the other members of the Disaster Services team and many others, put in to ensure that the Open Mapping Hubs and local communities are much more capable of managing disaster response independently. |
| Anni Beukes Response | At present there are no potential conflicts of interest to serve another term on HOT's Board. |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | Apart from being a former contractor for HOT and having worked with OMDTZ, which is a HOT partner, I don’t see any conflicts of interest. My current role is not related to HOT or OMDTZ. I don't see my history as a conflict but rather as a strength. However, I’ll leave it up to the respective parties to decide if it could be perceived as a conflict. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | I do not foresee any conflicts if I were to be re-elected for this board position. |
4. What is working well in HOT? What is not working well in HOT? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | There are so many achievements at HOT worth celebrating, but I’ll highlight a few. Nearly reaching our objective of mapping an area home to 1 billion people is incredible! There is perhaps nothing we should be more proud of than creating that portion of the map. Without our efforts, OpenStreetMap would likely still lack significant coverage in regions like Africa and Asia. This level of contribution to 'the wiki map of the world' is a defining part of HOT’s identity and something we should all be proud of.
Connected to this achievement is our incredible community. Depending on whether we count only Tasking Manager mappers or include Mapswipers and others, around 500,000 people have chosen to join our efforts. This is truly impressive. Finally, I want to highlight our success in fundraising. We are on track to raise $3,000,000 this year! While that may not reach the scale of the Audacious Project, I remember when raising $30,000 was a significant milestone for HOT. This growth is a testament to the hard work and dedication of everyone involved. One of the main reasons I decided to run this year is the major governance change up for a vote, and, frankly, governance has been a challenge for us. In my campaign statement, I mentioned that I was the one who ‘discovered’ the Chairperson of the Voting Members position—three years after it had been adopted in the Bylaws. We cannot expect high-level donors, partners, or potential candidates for appointed director positions to view us as trustworthy and professional if we can't even adhere to the rules we have set for ourselves. While we have made significant progress, I intend to be very straightforward about the need to properly govern the organization. This includes holding ourselves accountable and being completely transparent with our Voting Members. Ensuring strong governance practices is essential to our credibility and the continued success of HOT. |
| Anni Beukes Response | HOT has undergone significant structural changes in the past two years. As HOT comes to the end of the Audacious funding, I believe HOT is evolving into an organisation that is increasingly mature in defining its identity and offering in the open data ecosystem. HOT's tech offering and programmatic foci are responsive and relevant to the communities it serves and engages in. There are many small and big success to celebrate in the regional hubs.
At the same time it has been a tough year for HOT and many growing pains remain. One of the areas we struggle in is commitment and participation from VMs. Staff have picked up a lot of the responsibility for WGs in addition to their work and this may lead to mission-fatigue among staff. There is also room for improvement in our internal communications between the Board, leadership and staff when it comes to major organisation changes and challenges. Together we can do better. |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | A lot is going well in HOT. In terms of tech development i.e Tasking Manager, with half a million people joining the efforts, and the new Field Mapping Tasking Manager (FMTM) are revolutionary for mapping and the way volunteers contribute to OSM. Another thing is the establishment of four operational hubs globally, which has helped HOT achieve its audacious goal of mapping homes for 1 billion people while establishing a regional presence.
As for what’s not working well, I wouldn’t call it ‘not going well’, but rather that there are areas we need to refocus and evaluate, especially on localization and what this really means for HOT. As HOT has grown, there seems to be a disconnect between its global ambitions and the needs of local communities. I know the hubs were created to bridge this gap between regions and the global vision, but it’s important to evaluate how this has evolved. I believe we can improve this and better define what "localization" means for HOT. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | HOT has such a compelling story to tell, with years of proven and documented real-world impact. Additionally, this season of change that HOT has been in, while tough in some cases, is yielding, what I believe is, a mature non-profit organisation with capacity to continue delivering and impacting the lives of millions of unmapped populations globally. The organisation is so well respected within social impact circles, and the leadership team has done well to steward relationships in this regard.
That said, there are definitely areas of improvement. The question on localisation still pops up alot in various conversations, which speaks to the need to focus on actualising this within the organisation and wider community. I also think more can be done to tell HOT’s impact story in a more compelling way. |
5. What are the most important things the HOT board should be doing for the 1. membership 2. board 3. staff 4. global OSM community? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | 1. This is something I have thought about a lot. The number one priority for the board in regards to members should be creating opportunities to engage with the organization. Unfortunately, I’ve seen many instances where this has moved in the wrong direction. A notable example is the handling of the working groups. By disconnecting their reporting and accountability or even dissolving them entirely, we lose some of the best opportunities for members to engage, learn about the organization, and potentially be inspired to run for the board themselves.
2. For individual Directors, the most important thing is to support each other and foster a culture of learning and growth. I have taken a few courses on effective board membership and have invested time in self-study on parliamentary procedures. I am eager to share this knowledge with my fellow Directors to help us all become more effective, both individually and collectively. 3. For the staff, the most crucial role board members can play is to be available and responsive. While the board’s work can often proceed at a slower pace, staff frequently need timely input and decisions. It is essential for board members to be accessible and provide the necessary support and expertise when required. 4. For the global OSM community, HOT Directors need to act not just as representatives of the organization but as proactive individuals. We should strive to build sustained connections with individuals, local communities, partners, other organizations involved in OSM, as well as the OSMF Board and staff. By being actively involved, we can better anticipate and be at the forefront of changes within the OSM ecosystem. |
| Anni Beukes Response |
|
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | This is a tough question, but my response is;
To voting membership: Ensuring that voting members are engaged and active, by encouraging them to participate in different HOT activities. The best way for members to stay active is by joining working groups, and we need a proper feedback mechanism to gather input from members. Right now, many members are only involved during the voting season and we lose out on the potential of their voices to help HOT move forward strategically. To the board; It’s important to create a welcoming environment and foster collaboration from within, providing growth opportunities. This will help ensure that HOT is meeting its goals, with a good forecast, and sticks to its mission while holding itself accountable for the decisions made. For staff; The board should be available for staff and act accordingly, while being transparent about the level of support it can provide. For the OSM community; It’s essential to stay connected with the OSM community, ensuring that their voices are heard and that HOT collaborates where needed, without overshadowing local efforts. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | Membership: The board being available to engage more with membership and share thought processes around discussions and decisions would be useful. I also think there’s an opportunity to talk more about our experiences sitting on this board as a function of mentorship to voting members who may be interested in exploring a board role in future.
Board: I’ve really appreciated the energy and passion for mission that’s shared amongst current board members. I genuinely look forward to opportunities to work together either synchronously/asynchronously, along with the leadership team. I would hope that the commitment to collaboration and constructively working through differences in opinions(sometimes) will continue to carry. Staff: Similar to what the board can do for the membership, making ourselves available to support staff on functional areas, while also providing mentorship would be great. |
6. What do you think about the proposed change in board composition to include appointed board members as well as elected board members (acknowledging that elected members will remain the majority)? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | I mentioned this in my answer to how I contributed above. To expand, I do believe there is some real benefit to Appointed Board Members. The most obvious is that we will recruit specific skill sets. This could close some major gaps in terms of fundraising/finance, legal/business and emerging technology. To somewhat repeat myself, I think we should be looking for those skill sets for membership as well.
Another advantage of Appointed Directors is that they are likely to be truly independent—without any direct ties or history with HOT. This can be beneficial, as they may find it easier to provide objective scrutiny compared to those of us who have a vested interest and established relationships with many, if not all, of the staff at HOT. However, there are some risks. One concern is that we might struggle to find suitable candidates and end up 'settling' for Directors who may not be a good fit or are unfamiliar with our culture and mission. While we could replace them more easily than an elected Director, we risk being in a constant search for Appointed Directors. Eventually, we will need to determine if we can continue attracting strong candidates without offering, at least, minimal compensation. Therefore, I suggest that the Board form a committee to explore this possibility before we begin the first round of recruitment. |
| Anni Beukes Response | The inclusion of appointed board members with specific skill sets is crucial for HOT's sustainability and evolution. VMs should familiarise themselves with the process and participate in the ongoing discussion around defining which roles the Board should seek to appoint - this process has already begun and VMs are strongly encouraged to participate and contribute. Technically whether a Board member is elected or appointed, VMs still retain the most signifiant say, the key is to exercise this say through participation and active contribution in the governance of the organisation. |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | I think it’s a strategic move, considering that the appointed members will bring specific expertise to the board, such as governance and fundraising. However, the selection process must be rigorous and transparent, and it’s important that voting members are involved in providing input. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | I believe that the board needs to play a bigger role in supporting the leadership and management teams at HOT in achieving their goals. Having appointed board members will ensure that critical gaps like fundraising, non-profit legal and financial management can be filled (if we are unable to find these skills within the voting membership). It is also valuable to have diversity of thought (i.e board members who can bring perspectives outside of experiences from within the community).
That mix of elected and appointed board members will, in my opinion, prove to be a powerful support system in achieving the goals for the organisation. |
7. There is a shift happening in HOT where work and tech are focused less on OpenStreetMap exclusively and more on open mapping as a diverse set of tools and approaches. For example, increasing investment in enabling community drone imagery at scale and FMTM use cases going beyond OSM data collection. HOT was born out OSM - it's in our name! What do candidates think about this transition in terms of opportunities and risks and how do candidates think it should be managed? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | Personally, I believe this is the right direction for a 'sustainable growth HOT'. However, it should be a key topic of discussion with the entire voting membership. If we want to maintain HOT’s identity as centered around OpenStreetMap (OSM), that may lead to a leaner and possibly shorter-lived organization, but a decision I would also support.
Our current strategy seems to be steering us toward a broader range of products (e.g., Tasking Manager, Field Mapping Tasking Manager, Drone Tasking Manager, OpenAerialMap, fAIr) and services (e.g., end-to-end mapping, QA/QC, DIY drones, non-OSM data collection, GIS training). While these have historically been tied to OpenStreetMap, if part of our strategy becomes focusing on products like OpenAerialMap or the Drone Tasking Manager, these might turn out to be best pursued independent of OSM. This is a crucial issue for the organization and our voting members to deeply consider. Their voices, engagement—especially in governance and strategy—and votes will shape the direction we take moving forward. |
| Anni Beukes Response | I do not see this development in HOT as 'away' from OSM - rather as expanding what OSM can be. Many of the developments in our tech bring HOT closer to communities on the ground which is an important aspect of localisation and inclusive of more communities and still contributes data to OSM. A more productive engagement with this question for me would be how we do maintain our values and stay true to the ethics of our mission as we diversify our technology in open mapping? What role can/should HOT play in discussions on sustainable AI , data sovereignty and digital literacy and the role of spatial data in development? How does HOT bridge its humanitarian and development work and ensure that its tech and data offering remains relevant and useful for the open mapping and data ecosystem and communities we engage in? |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | HOT is dedicated to humanitarian action and community development through open mapping. While OSM is the foundation, it’s important to acknowledge that, to bring the impact we need and be sustainable, HOT need to adopt a combination of different open mapping techniques beyond OSM. This could allow us to bring greater value to the communities we serve and improve the ways they contribute.
However, there are risks if we don’t clearly define the scope of what we want to achieve in open mapping. I think the board is in a good position to lead this conversation within the broader HOT community and establish a clear roadmap on how to manage the transition. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | I think it all boils down to getting to a shared understanding of what HOT’s north star/purpose is (between the board, staff, membership and wider community). The choice of technology/tools has to be in service of that purpose.
I think it’s smart to not exclusively focus on one mapping tool, from a risk mitigation perspective. However, It’s also important to be clear on scopes, and clearly communicate this so that we’re not diluting HOT’s identity. |
8. Which specific board officer role, committee chair, or working group liaison position do you see yourself contributing to most effectively, and why? How do you plan to actively support HOT’s fundraising efforts, enhance the regional hub model, and strengthen board oversight by identifying both successes and challenges?? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | Given my experience as the Voting Membership Chairperson and involvement with the Governance Working Group, I see myself contributing most effectively in roles centered on governance and member engagement. Notably, the proposed Bylaws introduce a separate “Chairperson” role in addition to the “President.” While I would be honored to be elected President by my peers, I would also be comfortable serving as Chairperson. Additionally, having recently completed my Accounting and Finance concentrations in my EMBA studies, the role of Treasurer is appealing. However, I am equally happy to serve as a Member-at-large, potentially facilitating a new committee created under the Appointed Director changes.
While fundraising is not my primary strength, I recognize its importance and believe in making the ask when the opportunity arises. A mentor once told me, "The answer is always 'no' if you don't ask." I’ve participated in grant applications for HOT and other organizations, and as a Director, I would support fundraising efforts by building connections with potential partners and donors, and contributing where I can. To strengthen board oversight and improve the regional hub model, I would emphasize aligning efforts with clear strategic goals and fostering collaboration between hubs. Rather than comparing HOT pre- and post-Audacious funding, I would adopt a holistic approach to ensure we’re progressing against defined metrics. Additionally, revisiting the Whistleblower policy could offer a secure channel for staff and members to raise concerns, keeping the board informed of both successes and challenges. |
| Anni Beukes Response | |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | At the moment, I would prefer to stay as a member at large. I think it’s important for me to learn and collaborate with other board members and the community first. However, I would like to be the liaison for the Community Working Group, as I’ve been a member for a while and it’s an area I’m passionate about.
On Fundraising: By working with other board members and management to establish a specific focus and avoid over-reliance on ‘big name donors’. This would include assessing existing funding sources and how they align with our focus and targets. This will definitely be a collaborative effort with the other board members. I must declare that this is not an area I am most experienced in, but I’m hoping to learn from others while I contribute to areas that I am conversant in. On the regional hub model: Evaluation of the hub model is key and the results will inform how we move forward with the review of strategy and its adoption. The regional hubs have done an incredible job, especially in establishing a regional presence for HOT and helping achieve the audacious goal of mapping homes for 1 billion people. However, it’s important to conduct a 360-degree review of the hubs and the local open mapping organizations in these regions, to understand what the hubs mean to them and how connected they feel to the hubs. This will provide a better assessment of the hubs and help reposition them, if necessary. I’ve been vocal about this before on whether the community view the hubs as establishing a regional dominance of HOT or bringing HOT closer to the community. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | |
9. What concrete steps will you take to ensure that all voices, including staff, members, and community stakeholders, are heard and represented in board decisions? How will you assess the effectiveness of the board’s work and ensure transparent, open communication between the board, stakeholders, and the broader community? Additionally, how do you plan to support the Membership Chair in engaging members beyond elections and fostering greater participation?? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | To ensure that all voices—including staff, members, and community stakeholders—are heard and represented in board decisions, I would advocate for strong governance practices that create space for open dialogue and engagement. Clear channels for communication are essential, such as providing transparent and concise meeting minutes that outline decisions, accountability, and timelines.
Assessing the board’s effectiveness requires both formal and informal measures. I support the current efforts to develop an assessment tool and would push for a comprehensive, anonymous evaluation that can provide insights into how well the board is functioning. Beyond assessments, I will regularly check in with my fellow Directors to get feedback on my own performance and seek ways to strengthen collaboration. This will help ensure that the board remains accountable and effective in its oversight. My experience as a former Voting Membership Chairperson gives me great insight into the challenges of that role. I would, and already have, offered guidance and mentorship, helping to create opportunities for members to engage beyond just elections. One concrete step is to encourage member ownership of Working Groups, allowing them to play a more active role in HOT’s operations and strategic objectives, fostering ongoing participation and stronger connections within the community. |
| Anni Beukes Response | |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | It’s hard to say exactly what steps are needed to ensure that all voices are heard, as this is a tough issue. But I decided to run for the board to bring in the voice of the local community and for me the best way forward is through engaging with the working groups, as I believe most issues arise there. The second step would be engaging with Voting Members. I understand is is been done, but a lot of Voting Members are not active or not sharing their opinions much—they are only involved in voting. So it comes back to establishing effective feedback mechanisms and encouraging members to join working groups where most discussions happen.
The best way to ensure communication is to constantly update the VM and seek input and feedback also ask them and the community at large, through the working groups, about which communication methods work best for them. Because there are existing communications but I am not sure exactly why the gap is still there, so the better way is to ask the members on what works best for them. Membership participationː Its true that Voting Members have mostly been active only during board elections and I have highlighted this in some of the responses above. I think the best way to keep them engaged is through clear communication and transparency on the issues the board is working on, strengthening the input mechanisms and encouraging them to join working groups of their choice, as most of the discussions happen there. |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | |
10. What are your key objectives for the next two years as a board member? Reflecting on your past experiences (for incumbent board members who are running again), what challenges and accomplishments define your previous term, and how will these shape your future efforts on the board? What areas would you prioritize to ensure sustainable growth and address issues like layoffs, top-down management, and leadership accountability?? |
| Candidate Response | |
|---|---|
| Russell Deffner Response | While I'd love to focus on a broader range of goals, several pressing issues will likely dominate the first year or more. The primary concern is HOT's finances. After attending recent Board meetings and speaking with the Treasurer, it's clear that financial management will require significant attention. I anticipate spending the first few months familiarizing myself with our financial position and projections. Additionally, if the Bylaws Revision passes, we will need to manage the introduction of Appointed Directors and potentially form a committee to explore compensation, as well as establish a Nomination Committee for future candidate selection.
In terms of long-term priorities, I'd like to enhance membership engagement, particularly through improving our Working Groups and supporting the Voting Membership Chair in fostering greater involvement. Accountability is also critical, and I believe in providing the Voting Members with a Board self-assessment ahead of future elections, something that should be prioritized going forward. Potentially creating a 'Compensation Committee' or 'Assessment and Compensation Committee' would further ensure both performance evaluations and compensation decisions for the Board and Executive Director are well-structured and transparent. Reflecting on past experiences, one of the key challenges has been balancing the need to scale during times of growth, such as with the Audacious funding, while preparing for potential contractions in the absence of continued funding. Moving forward, I would prioritize creating stronger accountability mechanisms, especially in leadership and governance, by asking tough questions and ensuring the board has the information needed to make difficult decisions. I also believe in a collaborative approach, where feedback is actively sought from staff, members, and stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives are represented. To promote sustainable growth and avoid issues like layoffs or top-down management, I would advocate for a clear strategy aligned with performance metrics, particularly in the regional hubs. Encouraging collaboration and knowledge-sharing across hubs will help distribute expertise and resources effectively. Lastly, fostering accountability at all levels of leadership is key to ensuring HOT remains resilient and responsive to its community’s needs, and this is best achieved when objectives and metrics are meaningful and effectively measure success. |
| Anni Beukes Response | |
| Kate Chapman Response | |
| Hawa Adinani Response | This is my first time running and I would like to support more on community-centric decision-making procecess. This includes clearly defining what "localization" means to HOT and making sure our operations support local communities who are already working to address challenges, rather than overshadowing existing efforts.
On sustainable growth and top-down managementː I have mentioned before a more focused and strategic forecasting and ensuring that the board is transparent and accountable. More realistic goals should be set based on the financial status and the pace of fundraising. I’ve also talked about localization, and that should also mean HOT's structure is bottom-up, which brings us back to the question: ‘What does localization mean to HOT?’ |
| Angela Odour Lungati Response | |