[Osmf-talk] Thoughts on the "Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community" and OSMF decision next steps

Sat Dec 12 15:46:04 UTC 2020

Dear Allan and all,

Thanks, Allan for this email and the information on the behalf of the
OSMF Board of Directors.
As encouraged by your message, I’d like to share a few thoughts on the
recent email conversations [1] at the origin of the “Call to Take
Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behaviour in the OSM Community”
which lead to this 10-Dec 2020 Board decision and the proposed course
of action.

Although I have been relatively active mainly on 3 osm mailing lists
(hot, hot-membership and osmf), I have never put forth so far how
harsh this has been for me. I felt it’s important to do so prior to
getting any further given the diversity topic around which revolve our
whole conversation. I am not a native English speaker and I am
therefore contributing from within a linguistic minority position:
reading, thinking and writing is of course more time and energy
consuming as well as surely frustrating when it comes to expressing
oneself with subtlety. Although I happened to be portrayed as a
“resilient” character within all the work environments I have been
navigating these past 20 years across the academic, humanitarian and
development sectors as well as OpenStreetMap worlds in more than 10
countries (Haiti and Africa), this is on the 3 above-quoted OSM
mailing-lists that I have experienced the more violence of my entire
life. This makes any email conversation a potential harmful experience
I have to *prepare* myself for. This is specifically true during
election times or at the occasion of governance matters. Most of the
violence I experienced on the lists came from individuals signatories
of the Call to action who belong to one of the signing organizations
(HOT US Inc) through its Communication Working Group which is at the
origin of the first version of this Call together with the Geochicas.
Ironically during this past years (2015 onwards), none of those
persons and none of the membership of this organization publicly
deemed necessary to step in the course of violent and libelous email
exchanges, nor reminded the OSMF Etiquette, nor triggered
retroactively HOT US Inc CoC, the way they decided to act this 9-Dec
2020. This minority position did not prevent me from contributing my
views and experiences when and where I found it appropriate to help
shaping OpenStreetMap, but this is not without cost. There will always
be a cost while engaging in a collective discussion specifically when
governance issues are at play and that disagreements between members
of a democratic collective have to be worked out within the
agreed-upon conversation rules of a democratic framework, the question
for us is to lower at max this cost.

Given the time it took me – while I belong to the “dominant
contributor profile: white, Western and male [that is]” to quote the
Call to action – to write this email after having read and thought
through the exchanges and documents as well as refrained to jump too
hastily in the conversation, it would be hard to deny that there are
things that need to get fixed collectively to better handle violence
in conversations and tend achieving more inclusiveness for a more
diverse OSM. As a matter of fact, it’s equally impossible to disagree
on any call to collectively work towards more inclusiveness and to
strive for a more diverse OSM. This is the very root of the project
and at the core of almost all the actions of the community.

Whilst sharing the overall aims of the Call to action (civility in
conversation and diversity/inclusiveness), I nevertheless have
disagreements on the approach, the envisioned solution, the proposed
course of action of the Board and I have doubt about the sincerity of
some of the signatories as well as their organization when it comes to
the matter.

Frederik was in its full rights and fulfilling its civic duty as an
OSMF member questioning a Board candidate working for a big
corporation and formulating a voting recommendation shared by many in
the membership (myself included).

This being said Frederik’s choice of words was inappropriate/offensive
and rightfully pointed as such, collectively discussed and moderated
in an open way throughout a process which allows for Frederik
awareness and his sincere apologies.
The lessons we can learn are many-fold:
This episode demonstrates that in any communication, the
conversational style matters: it conditions positively/negatively the
reception of the message as well as it affects directly its author.
Outside of any group moderation/sanction, any communication bears sui
generis its own virtue reinforcing or weakening the legitimacy of the
speaker. This goes for Frederik in this case.
The episode demonstrates also within OSMF a collective ability to
handle and overcome swiftly this issue in an open manner without
having to get any further than step 2 of the moderation process put
forth in the OSMF Etiquette [2]. That is to say without any
intervention from a mailing-list moderator, any of the measures
proposed in the Board decision, eg, instancing moderator team and
forging the processes to appoint individuals with community buy-in,
setting procedures for them to operate with some community
consultation/approbation whose mechanisms have still yet to be figured
out. Without any of the future recommendations from the LCCWG, DISC as
well as the Call to action signatories.
All of the Board proposed actions look “heavy” (with regards to how
swiftly the issue got resolved in this conversation email), complex”
to set up and to maintain while bearing the risk of some form of
community control. We shall ask ourselves if this is worth allocating
resources in this direction.

The way Frederik’s got singled out in the first version of the Call to
action has been rightly defined as troublesome not to say more. For
sometime, it was as if all Frederik tremendous merits in OSM were gone
for one clumsy and idiotic sentence in one email out of the so many he
has been tirelessly contributing for the sake of the project.
Fortunately this time was limited thanks to edits made in the Call to
action paired with email statements. Unfortunately, this is not going
to be without traces and impact. While tackling seriously sexism,
misogyny, and minority despise, we equally need to realize the
consequences of our actions for the individuals involved and avoid any
form of delegitimization. One may see some form of political
manipulation and power games at play in this episode with vested
interest into harming the legitimacy of someone as influential in OSM
as Frederik. I went through such experiences with Severin Ménard and
some other members of HOT US Inc and we saw our reputation and merits
damaged or endangered over time in this organization and abroad as a
result.

The second point of method I found problematic in the Call for action
is its mixing of the various minority situations which hampers its
critical effectiveness while making it less easily actionable. Aren’t
the categories too broad? Can’t they be subject to further analyzed?
Do all minorities share the perspective of women? Is there only one
woman perspective in OSM? What about intersectionality with power,
wealth? The same applies for the “dominant contributor profile: white,
Western and male” at the heart of the dynamic of power in OSM: which
Western nationalities have been at the OSMF Board so far? English is a
barrier for a significant number of French mappers even for some at
the OSM France Board, do they work equally as “gatekeepers” of the
“Old” OSMF as other nationalities which had been present at the OSMF
Board (UK, US and Germany for example)? This being said, I understand
that the whole document is work in progress, meant to state an issue,
formalize thoughts, gather resources, help us get going and feed OSMF
Board, LCCWG, DISC and mappers and as such is valuable.

The third point of method I found problematic in the Call to action,
the Board decision which is also featured in some emails is the status
of the body of evidences/facts on which is based the diagnosis of:
- the unhealthiness of the OSM conversational spaces: “It is time to
stop asking our colleagues for more "evidence"” (Tyler’s email [3])
- the necessity for changing the course of actions: “In the Board's
role of service to the community, it is also clear that "business as
usual" doesn't work anymore.” (Tyler’s email [3])

Shall we want to collectively move forward with a shared understanding
of the dynamics at work across the conversational spaces of OSM,
there’s a need to continue elaborating/refining the existing body of
evidence. This is especially true for those *structurally
(unconsciously)* in a position of power which prevents them from or
makes it hard for them to realize those logics.
To get an idea of the “toxicity” of email conversations, can’t we
produce an archive of email threads assessed/deemed “offensive” to get
some ideas of metrics and shares over the wealth of emails exchanged
on the lists?
Those emails could be commented upon, categories and typologies built,
guidance (developing into dos and don’t) could be derived and assist
in helping all parties to better understand each other.
The first action point of the Call to actions is to enforce a Code Of
Conduct (CoC). This is a controversial topic in OSM and in OSMF as
proven this year as well as earlier in the 2015, 2017, 2018 Board
elections. This is also a topic on which, again, we are lacking
knowledge about experiences of its enforcement across OSM lists and
fora.
We are as well deprived of systematic knowledge as per the current
moderation experiences across the various lists.
Reading from the Board resolution this lack of knowledge is also true
of the OSM Etiquette.
Finally, is there not a need to take into account the resources
required to the establishment of both group moderators, enforcement of
Etiquette and CoC as well as the risks of some forms of community
control they yield.

It’s impossible when it comes to cases related to CoC enforcement
within OSM not to look at its genealogy across HOT US Inc in the
context of OSMF Board elections.
The idea of establishing/enforcing a CoC for OSMF and across OSM
conversational spaces on the model of what was accomplished in HOT US
Inc in 2015/2016 following 2015 OSMF Board election:
- It was first put forth in 2017 OSMF Board election, see emails [4,5]
- It surfaced again in 2018 OSMF Board election, see emails [6,7,8,9]
In a nutshell (anyone can refer to the above-listed emails for
details), the CoC has been used in HOT US Inc to control the
membership and get rid off a minority of French-speaking members of
the organization active at its incorporation in 2010 or at its very
early days in 2011 whose contribution was instrumental in positioning
the organization at a stage where it could continue to grow from 2014
onwards. Ironically, the conflict was about the focus and magnitude to
put on support programs to local communities though grassroot agile
low cost operational schemes paired with organizational and governance
support action versus largely funded programs as well as the
horizontal organizational model vs an hierarchical one.
Despite troublesome emails (liable to complaints as per HOT US Inc
CoC) sent for example by Mikel Maron ([6]) or Dale Kunce ([8]) during
2018 OSMF Board election to which I replied ([9]), no CoC got
activated within the organization.
Lastly, even for a well funded and functional NGO like HOT US Inc, it
seems that the human resources to follow up CoC complaints prove to be
somewhat challenging. A CoC complaint (see [6] for details) started
May 2017 got terminated Jan 2019 for the following reasons: ““Sounds
to me like the process for CoC complaints at HOT US Inc, of which
there is one, might not have been followed for whatever reason
(usually lack of volunteer time in the roles).” (see Blake Girardot’s
email [7] for details).

This being said, it’s impossible not to acknowledge that, through this
Call to action, an important number of persons and organizations are
re-stating their willingness to see action from the OSMF Board these
topics which have been at the core of the project since its beginning.
Without minimizing these organizations and these individuals, it would
be important to gauge which share of the OSMF membership they
represent. It would also be important for the Board to consider
organizing a survey on this topic framed so that one can state not
supporting the design and enforcement of a CoC while sharing the
objectives set forth in the Call to action.

The Board decision to task LCCWG and DISC with following on the Call
to Action makes sense as well as involving its willing signatories. It
would be worth it to also reach out to the individuals who showed an
interest in the topics without endorsing the Call to action so that
they can be part of this exercise.

Prior to taking any decision that would change moderation methods
across OSM conversational spaces, it’s paramount to my eyes to give
ourselves time to mobilize evidence, time to share, time to discuss
and time to decide (vote) if the OSMF shall change and enforce a CoC.

Since the first days of my OSM journey, I had been striving for
diversity and inclusiveness in OSM mainly across Haiti and Sub-Saharan
Africa, first at the United Nations (2007) first, then within the
informal OSM collective “HOT project” I co-ideated (2008), the US NGO
HOT US Inc I co-founded (2010-2014) and from 2013 onwards in the
collectives Projet EOF and Les Libres Geographes I co-founded. I have
been always operating at grassroot level, horizontally, working mainly
through capacity building towards local empowerment. I encouraged in
Western Africa OSM activities around gender as early as 2015. I had
always been cautious to provide for safe spaces in all the spatial
collectives set up for the over 60 projects I co-implemented in over
10 countries over the last 10 years. I am aware (although I can only
claim a part of direct experience) of some of the “violent” dynamics
reported in the Call to action. But I am not in favor of a CoC for the
OSMF and its generalization to all OSM conversational spaces. I don’t
see how they can solve the issues and I experienced too well how such
tools can be used for membership control in any organization or
collectives. I’d rather think that offensive communications singled
out badly their authors whose credibility/legitimacy is diminished
especially in our communities. This with shared core values, a
continued commitment to collectively react to violence in
communication and the existing list moderation procedure shall be
sufficient gears to make progress.

I’d see this fairly “free” approach to organizing conversation around
OSM complemented by the thematic safe places already put in place by
collectives of different minorities. This would echo what works in
social activism. Minority groups can choose to organize themselves
from within their virtual or physical own self-governed (and therefore
safe) spaces when needed. Aside from these collective “internal”
experiences, these minority collective can decide (or not) to interact
with all the other segments of the social movement within which the
sensitization to the questions of minorities progress.

Lastly, I think it might be worth harnessing more the potential of
intersectionality [10] while looking to minority dynamics. Connect
identity to economic/business power and work towards preserving OSM
and OSMF autonomy from their logics. This ultimately brings us back to
the initial email by Frederik about big corporation influence.

I hope that this email can help us in our current conversation and
navigate better towards achieving a more civilized, more inclusive and
more diverse OSM.

Best,
Nicolas

PS: this email reads as well as diary note [11]

[1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085736.html
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette
[3]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-December/007590.html
[4]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-December/004590.html
[5]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-December/004740.html
[6]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005731.html
[7]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005737.html
[8]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005738.html
[9]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005764.html
[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
[11]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nicolas%20Chavent/diary/395084

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:36 PM Allan Mustard <allan at mustard.net> wrote:
>
> I apologize if this is a duplicate, but I received notices from Google Mail that the message below sent to both osmf-talk and talk was not delivered "because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail."  I am therefore retransmitting the message using my home email address.  apm
>>
>> To the OSM and OSMF communities:
>>
>> I convey the following information on behalf of the Board of Directors of the OpenStreetMap Foundation.
>>
>> An outcome of the current controversy on the osmf-talk mailing list over misogynistic language is a decision by the Board as follows:
>>
>> The Board will find partners to help instate a moderator team for the OSMF-talk and talk mailing lists. These moderators need to have the trust of the community subject to the moderation (consent of the governed) by some kind of approval mechanism. This moderator team will start to work on enforcing the current Etiquette guidelines as soon as possible. We will also start work on updating/replacing our Etiquette rules, which must focus on balancing all participants' interests.
>>
>> We have asked the Local Chapters and Communities Working Group (LCCWG ) to take the lead on this and to work with signatories of the open letter to the Board [1] as well as members of the Diversity and Inclusion Special Committee to produce proposals for the Board to consider at its January meeting.  The LCCWG has accepted this task.  This issue will be on the agenda of the January meeting of the Board of Directors, exact time and date yet to be determined, though as is customary it will be posted to the Foundation's website well in advance.
>>
>> Members of the OSM community are, as always, welcome to share their opinions and any relevant information on this matter, either publicly via osmf-talk, or privately in direct communications to the LCCWG.  I feel compelled to remind all members of the community that a Code of Etiquette [2] has existed since June 2011 and shall be observed by all community members.
>>
>> Very best  regards to all,
>> apm
>>
>> [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?ts=5fd11436#heading=h.ccgtgjykcfgh
>> [2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Etiquette
>>
>> -------
>> Allan Mustard, Chairperson
>> Board of Directors
>> OpenStreetMap Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-- 
Nicolas Chavent
Les Libres Géographes
Projet OpenStreetMap (OSM)
Projet Espace OSM Francophone (EOF)
Projet GeOrchestra
Mobile (FR): +33 (0)6 52 40 78 20
Mobile (Haiti): +509 40 19 46 02
Email: nicolas.chavent at gmail.com
Email: nicolas.chavent at leslibresgeographes.org
Skype: c_nicolas
Twitter: nicolas_chavent