<div dir="ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div><div>I like the Idea of a public checklist of preferred and invalidating conditions. What those conditions are could be ironed out over more discussion but a framework of them sounds prudent.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-Ehnon<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 3:09 PM Andrew Hain <<a href="mailto:andrewhainosm@hotmail.co.uk">andrewhainosm@hotmail.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>I would add a couple more issues: adding requirements when the last two calls for venues failed to get a bid the first time could mean either no conference or one that is very defective in other ways, also being a map of the whole world is itself a diversity
matter for us and we’d risk confining ourselves to a few “safe” parts of the world at the expense of our wider community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Andrew<br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="gmail-m_6523105720578608377divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Yves via osmf-talk <<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 07 October 2021 05:19<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a> <<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>>; Amanda McCann <<a href="mailto:amanda.mccann@osmfoundation.org" target="_blank">amanda.mccann@osmfoundation.org</a>>; OSMF Talk <<a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>>; OSM Talk <<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Osmf-talk] Should OSMF adopt a policy about State of the Map conference in places that are LGBTQ*/etc unsafe?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>Hello,<br>
That is certainly a topic to be considered. <br>
I'm not sure it is better to close the debate beforehand by such a rule instead of having the debate when considering a particular venue.
<br>
The later may give more room to discuss about diversity in the future, also when a place is in a grey area. Of course, we can have this discussion now.
<br>
<br>
Regards, <br>
Yves <br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Le 6 octobre 2021 23:09:02 GMT+02:00, Amanda McCann <<a href="mailto:amanda.mccann@osmfoundation.org" target="_blank">amanda.mccann@osmfoundation.org</a>> a écrit :
<blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<pre dir="auto">Hello OSM friends,<br><br>So here's an idea... I've previously complained when an organisation holds an event in a place where it's “illegal to be gay” and claim that the event is a “safe space”. Since I'm on the OSMF Board, I would be wrong for me to continue to complain about other organisations and not try to suggest such a policy for the OSMF.<br><br>The OSMF grants a trademark licence (for the “State of the Map” trademark which the OSMF legally owns) to regional event conferences, and legally, the OSMF runs the annual State of the Map conference.<br><br>There are several different wordings of this policy possible. My initial idea of a policy is: “you can't have a SotM for [REGION] in a venue if same-sex sexual activity is illegal (& that's being enforced) there, *and* there is a place in [REGION] where that is legal (or illegal & not enforced)”. This covers bi/pan/queer/etc people.<br><br>I can't easily think of a simple rule for trans/gender identity issues that's as clear cut for the very basic level (e.g. many countries have required gender segregated toilets for a long time and the laws requiring ”birth sex” are new and uncommon, legal gender recognition might not be so relevant for a visitor, etc) so I'll stick to this for now. I am OK with “State of the Map [COUNTRY]” happening in a country where it's illegal everywhere. My goal is to prevent anyone having a *legal downgrade* with “State of the Map”.<br><br>Many in OSM have spent a long time improving things for minoritized groups, and maybe this is just another step in that process. I am only mentioning “illegal to be gay” because it's a simple, clear standard. I think it could be benefitial to include other standards too (e.g. I believe some countries forbid women from driving). I am focussing on LGBTQ+ issues because that affects me personally, and I know a lot about it. I encourage other minoritized people to speak up if they want.<br><br>So what do yous, the wider OSM(F) community think about the OSMF adopting this policy (or something like it, or not adopting anything new policy)?<br><br><div>-- <br>(P.S.: I recently changed my name)<br><br>A. McCann<br>Secretary<br>OpenStreetMap Foundation<br><br>Name & Registered Office:<br>OpenStreetMap Foundation<br>St John’s Innovation Centre<br>Cowley Road<br>Cambridge<br>CB4 0WS<br>United Kingdom<br>A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales<br>Registration No. 05912761<hr>osmf-talk mailing list<br><a href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br></div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</blockquote></div>