[Osmf-talk] Commitment to open communication channels

[Rory McCann (OSMF Board)]

I think you've summed up what I think accurately.

I feel like this conversation has some miscommunications and people 
leaping to conclusions. The OSMF committing to communicate in ways with 
low barriers (open communication channels), is a way to ensure people 
don't miss out on things.

It would be foolish for OSM to _not_ use popular communication channels 
(both open & proprietary). I myself regularly use lots of those 
channels. I've often attended in person OSM events that take place on 
private property! It's not hard for people to summarize important things 
that happen there, and add them to the official record, like the wiki or 
this mailing list.

No-one should be forced to have their OSM interactions on Facebook, or 
this mailing list.

OSM is (& should remain) leaderless, so I hope all OSMers feel empowered 
to post Official OSMF Statements™ on whatever other communication 
channels they are active on. We can't be on everything

On 17.08.20 20:52, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>             sent from a phone
> 
>              > On 17. Aug 2020, at 18:39, Andy Townsend
>             <ajt1047 at gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>             https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
>