[Osmf-talk] Commitment to open communication channels

[Kathleen Lu]

I think what Heather is getting at here is that, while the concept of
"essential communications should be at least on an open channel, in
addition to proprietary ones," is unobjectionable, the corollary is also
true but unaddressed: Essential communication should not be *only* on the
email list, or the wiki, or other platforms that are open technologically
but nevertheless present cultural or practical limitations on access, and
disproportionate weight should not be given to communications on open
channels if the majority of OSM community members do not actually use those
channels.
I would think that a relatively simple mitigation would be for the Board to
take care to communicate essential communications to non-open channels that
host a lot of community members, to have a checklist of such channels to
ensure they are not missed, and to assign board members to track follow-ups
on those channels.


On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:32 AM Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk <
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> No, forbidding to post critical information or hold official discussions
> *solely* on Facebook
> is not limiting our ability to be a truly inclusive equitable global
> community.
>
> Note that this is not proposing ban on use of proprietary communication
> channels.
>
> You only need to use them in addition to open one.
>
> "Essential communications will always be accessible through an open,
> preferably self-hosted platform. They may be published on proprietary
> channels as well, but only in addition to an open channel."
>
> Why it would limit our ability to be a truly inclusive equitable global
> community?
>
> Aug 17, 2020, 19:25 by heatherleson at gmail.com:
>
> 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/a1e362ac/attachment.htm>