[Osmf-talk] Commitment to open communication channels

Leroy Olivier leroy.oli at gmail.com
Mon Aug 17 18:59:22 UTC 2020


Hello,

I am not by any means a "long time OSM member"  and I do not express myself
mostly because I have not built enough knowledge to make any kind of
interesting/constructive comment. But I enjoy reading this mailing list and
the various points of view and don't feel unsafe or excluded.

"does this limit our ability to be a truly inclusive equitable global
> community"?
>

I prefer a more reticulate/granular idea of "community" than a global one.
If I have some issues/questions it is easier to ask in my local
chapter/group first.

If not, what steps can we take to do this better?
>

The "R-Ladies" (https://rladies.org/about-us/) have been doing good on this
front in the R communities. Maybe it is an idea ?

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?
>

I will take a recent example : the idea of funding by raising money with
donations. This is something that is very strange to me (as a french
person) and it feels totally "american" to me.  People who can raise money
like that will be more likely to be powerful than others who can't. As I
say it is also maybe some "cultural apprehension".

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?
>

See my R-Ladies comment. The fact than strong "leaders" in the R
communities have express the idea that no question was stupid and you need
to produce bad code to improve helped a lot (the situation in the R mailing
was not always great before).


cheers,

olivier

Le lun. 17 août 2020 à 12:43, Heather Leson <heatherleson at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>


-- 
Olivier Leroy
Docteur Géographie et Environnement
Post-doctorant EVS IMU GOURAMIC
06.18.37.18.08
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200817/c470e89d/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list