[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

Thu Dec 10 07:53:42 UTC 2020

Reading this, I'm having very mixed feelings.
So, I figured I'd speak up and share my personal stance on things. (note I
am part of the belgian local chapter, but writing my personal thoughts).

On the one hand:
YES, diversity is good, as it avoids a narrow-sighted approach to the
project.

On the other hand:
Quota? Really? Why can we not just go with 'who's deemed the best
candidate' WITHOUT looking at sex, gender, nationality, employer or income?
The best way to respect contributions by any sort of 'minority', is to
treat them as just any other person, focussing on their merit rather than
the fact they are a part of a certain underrepresented group.

If we are to talk about 'policies' on how to deal with it: I'll agree to
'zero tolerance' towards holding people back or telling people off based on
the sort of criteria as listed above.
That part of the argument I can get behind. I'll even say I'm in favor of
projects that help people from those underrepresented groups get involved
in the project (as mappers, or as part of working groups, etc.. up to the
board.
Claiming there MUST be certain representation, however, I do not, as I feel
that's not necessarily in the best interest of the project we all care so
much for.

As far as this mailing list goes - I've only recently joined the OSMF
itself, after having been involved within OSM Belgium for 3-4 years.
I'll agree that some of the main names I see appearing are highly
'recurring' - people speaking up from their own experience, often at a
level where I assume / feel confident they know what they are talking about
and have the project's best interest at hand, and which means I don't get
involved in arguments where I have nothing meaningful to contribute.

This brings me to the point of 'resistance by the established leads'
towards change, or what's labeled the gatekeeper effect.
I don't fully agree it's always a bad thing: as they have a far broader
view on most things too. I suppose that goes for many particular
subdivisions of what OSM as a whole represents.
Personal example: I've been initially put off by the responses when making
suggestions to the osm-carto folks, but when I get over the initial 'but
why don't you agree with me', I've come to understand the difficult
position it is, and even gained respect for how the best interest was
defended along the way'.

Overall, my feelings are this:
* Speaking up should be encouraged, as long as:
          - It is done in a civil way
          - You argue the ISSUE, not the PERSON.
          - Responses follow the same line
* If that last point fails, then red flags should go up

We live in an ever more delicate world, and I can understand issues like
this being brought up.
I do hope to call for a mindset that focuses on not 'gatekeeping' for the
sake of 'grasping to power', but that's open to discussion based on issues.
So far, I have not experienced any troubling issues in that aspect, even if
they meant a 'no' for what I thought was a good idea.

And as closing words, I'll go with this:
I'd love a more 'inclusive' approach. As in: don't single out certain
minorities and refer to them as such. I don't care WHO does things
(nation/gender/..) as long as this remains an ecosystem where people can
talk with each other, and both teach/learn from others.
To me, that is the spirit of the project - and I'd rather focus on that
then balancing out numbers through quota for appearances.

Op do 10 dec. 2020 om 07:58 schreef Darafei Praliaskouski via osmf-talk <
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>:

> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 10:48 PM Maarten Deen <mdeen at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> I have been silent about this but when a document is drafted where only
>> supporters will be heard, I have to speak out in Frederiks support.
>> I have seen no systemic aggressive behaviour that demotivates and
>> excludes participation by women and minority groups in OSM or behaviour
>> that degrades the spirit of open community culture, and damages the
>> OpenStreetMap reputation from Frederik.
>>
>
> Basically, a person (who is a board candidate) was denied to be able to
> own their own will, substituted with their employer, and insulted in a way
> that I cannot construct a way of self-defense from.
>
> That was done by a former board member, an employee/owner of a company
> that has a seating board member, and if we mirror the whole thing - "done
> to protect Geofabrik's investment into having a seat on the board". Of
> course, such an interpretation will not be acceptable for current board
> member, employee of Geofabrik and expectedly a report of Frederik.
>
> For some reason this aggressive gatekeeping behavior to secure a board
> seat from a small company is tolerated and comes unnoticed. I believe if
> you think Frederik's behavior is okay there, you are indeed a part of a
> problem, to my view. Michal has decades of experience in cartography & OSM
> before joining FB, but that is erased and ignored by Frederik in
> unacceptable fashion.
>
> I support the document below.
>
>
>>
>> On 2020-12-09 20:06, Celine Jacquin wrote:
>> > Hello everybody
>> > I hope you are all well
>> >
>> > We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have
>> > reacted to the conversation in the osm-talk-list
>> > (
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html)
>> > considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have
>> > faced for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest
>> > obstacles to diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real
>> > change.That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the
>> > desirable mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and
>> > improve diversity.
>> >
>> > We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented
>> > to sign it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome):
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > On behalf of the signatories
>>
>
>
> Darafei,
> as an individual who's with OSM from 2008.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201210/98796cb1/attachment.htm>