[Osmf-talk] Commitment to open communication channels

[john whelan]

I don't think the platform matters.

Communications via email in a second language will always be open to
misinterpretation, especially when some views are expressed abruptly.  Some
OSM mappers hold strong opinions and voice them.

I can't see the platform making any difference.  Perhaps we should have a
test to see how polite people are before we allow them to post?

Some of our mappers are not terribly  sociable people but they enjoy
mapping.  Would you exclude them?

The world is not a perfect place.

Cheerio John



On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 13:41 Heather Leson <heatherleson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, let me ask you this:
>
> 1. Do you think the OMSF mailing list is where all community members feel
> safe and included to communicate?
> 2. If not, what steps can we take to do this better?
> 3. If osmf continues down this road, how will they do so to also be ssfe,
> inclusive and equitable in terms of power and true dialogue?
> 4. What will each person responding to make sure that: more women respond,
> more people from other regions of the world respond, and, more importantly,
> that this is a safe and inclusive mailing list that is truly global, truly
> equitable and truly safe?
>
>
> Thanks again for the dialogue
>
> Heather
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, 19:33 john whelan, <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think formal communications should be done on an open platform.
>>
>> There is a danger that Facebook or something similar could exclude some
>> people and if it is a discussion that impacts the map start it on Slack if
>> you will but it should not mean that decisions about imports etc are made
>> there since not all mappers have access to Facebook, Slack etc.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 13:27 Heather Leson <heatherleson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Great. I guess I ask because the people responding are long time OSM
>>> members. I value you, truly. Honest.
>>>
>>> But here we are- a small circle talking on this mailing list. Maybe open
>>> is not just the platform but the ways we work to collaborate and
>>> communicate across gender, region and power.
>>>
>>> Again, I get the open platform focus. In an ideal world where we all
>>> engage with the same interent access and communications methods, this
>>> works. However, I am asking "does this limit our ability to be a truly
>>> inclusive equitable global community"?  Not an easy question, but I guess I
>>> would like to hear from other community voices.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Heather
>>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, 19:14 Martin Koppenhoefer, <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> sent from a phone
>>>>
>>>> > On 17. Aug 2020, at 18:39, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > That's pretty much how I've been interpreting it - things that people
>>>> "really ought to be able to read" will be written somewhere that's public,
>>>> rather than a private channel from which content might disappear at any
>>>> time (like Facebook, etc.).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> or services which some might prefer to not use because they don’t want
>>>> their accesses traced, like google documents.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers Martin
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> osmf-talk mailing list
>>>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> osmf-talk mailing list
>>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200817/56cf02a4/attachment.htm>