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

Tue Dec 15 15:14:29 UTC 2020

Hey Arun and all,

Thanks for sharing your views Arun and the reasons that lead you to sign
the Call to take action.

Since day 1 and in order to grow, OSM has been set to operate inclusively
towards diversity and respect of minorities with the OSMF forming the body
to tackle governance issues related to this matter.
Diversity goes with differences in opinions which in conversations can lead
to the expression of disagreements. Through moderated conversational spaces
(lists, forum…), OSMF organizes the public space for talks and
disagreements to unfold democratically. Disagreements are inherent to
conversations and have to be seen as a testimony of the democratic vitality
of a community. Since expressing differences in opinions and disagreements
can’t go without tensions, the public space shall be organized to prevent
tension from developing into intermittent or systematic violence while
always allowing the expression of differences in opinion and disagreements.
That's this balance which is always difficult to keep within any human
collective and especially when memberships or communities are of the size
and the diversity of the OSMF and the OSM project.

So prior to the Call to take action, we already have a collective
consciousness about handling tensions in communication within OSMF and OSM
as well as the institutional bodies and fora to think and act upon the
phenomenon.

What's immediately at play is mainly two-fold:
- Are we accurate in assessing that the structural tensions in
communications reached a level of violence which calls for action? The
question of qualifying further this level of tension under violence terms
(systematically violent, intermittently violent, etc), is somehow
secondary; and
- Is a CoC the appropriate first and direct action to take to fix this
state of things

While looking at this long-standing topic, we shall be wary of:
Governance mechanisms.
- Was the Board right in taking a decision on the topic from within the
voting week of the OSMF Board election at the request of only a sub-part of
the OSMF membership yet numerous in terms of individuals as well as backed
by organizations. An acknowledgement of the Call and a statement by which
it would be put at the agenda of the newly elected Board as well as
indications in terms of the institutional bodies who will be in charge of
the matter would have preserved the full autonomy of the new Board.
- Are we ok with taking action on a topic pointed out by some of the
members without consulting through community discussion and survey at least
all OSMF members and figure out ways to involve in this conversation non
OSMF members yet active around OSM and unaware of the current discussion
like pointed by Ivo [1]
Evidence.
- Are the evidence brought forth so far on these topics sufficient to
enforce such an important change in OSMF and across OSM? To me the answer
is no.
- Election discussions which inform the membership vote are fundamental to
OSMF internal democracy. In a collective effort to retrieve evidence of
violences in communication, election conversations across OSM (OSMF, HOT US
Inc others...) shall be considered and looked through (the Call to take
action mentions the 2017 OSMF Board election as subject to such a
violence). Is it ok to question individuals who put themselves for serving
the Foundation as Board officers based on their merits and their past
professional as well as civic engagements ? Or does this yield already
violence and offense ? Not questioning troublesome actions of a candidate
not to be violent or offensive in communication and letting this individual
be elected without warning the OSMF membership can be seen as an act of
violence committed against the OSMF and surely detrimental to the
organization. To my knowledge, none of these analyses have been produced so
far.

=My position=
Pete made me clarify my position which reads at the beginning of my diary
note [2].
Prior to enforcing a CoC, we shall work the issue of violence in
communication within the existing OSMF policy (Etiquette) since it has not
been used so far up to its full potential.
I think that this election discussion and the mobilization around the Call
to Take Action created in the community more awareness if not a new ethos
which most likely will result into more attention to actual/potential
violence in communication. This may change positively our conversational
style. Shall an issue arise, it’s more likely to be pointed out and to
trigger this open informal collective moderation process we witnessed
around Frederik’s post. If this informal collective moderation does not
work out, then the formal moderators will act following our Etiquette.
Prior to moving to CoC, we shall give collective intelligence powered by
this new ethos with the backing of full usage of our OSMF etiquette and
tools its chance and we shall learn from this experience.
Meanwhile, we shall also deepen our understanding and keep building
evidence around past cases of violence in communication across OSM as well
as document experiences of CoC enforcements. We shall analyze and think
through these materials. This shall contribute in return to more
intelligence in our conversations, in informal collective moderation and in
the action of formal moderators.
If violence in communication persists despite these efforts, then we can
cautiously move to something new. In so doing, we would have trust human
intelligence, we would have tested our Etiquette and tools, we would have a
thorough and fact grounded shared understanding of the phenomenon, we would
have the basis for a non (or a less) controversial move towards the
adoption of CoC within a less divided membership and community.

Looking forward to continuing this conversation in this list as well as in
the relevant fora.
Excellent day to all,
Nicolas

[1]:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-December/007619.html
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Nicolas%20Chavent/diary/395084

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 7:23 AM Arun Ganesh <arun.planemad at gmail.com> wrote:

> As one of the signatories to the call to action, my support is foremost to
> accept that there is systemic offensive behaviour in this community and to
> have a forum to propose how we could be better.
>
> The offensive behaviour that stands out is not the actual words of
> woodpeck, but in the manner how the offense raised has been heard out.
>
> Text has its limitations to convey ideas consistently across language and
> cultures, and its a matter of time before even the most well meaning
> sentence will find someone to offend, the longer it lingers around. What
> matters is how we listen to each other when someone expresses
> a miscommunication of language, and it definitely feels like we can be
> doing much better.
>
> To zoom out a little and unite us all in the same boat, let say we all are
> a great thriving fictional community - the human club - most diverse and
> inclusive that anyone is free to join. A few penguins, who are the more
> recent members of the human club are getting uncomfortable with the
> objectification of penguins on some of the human laptops. The penguins
> raise the issue with the humans, but the humans are vocal in agreement that
> there's no problem to begin with.
>
> But there is a problem if someone says so, and we need to figure out what
> to do about it together. If we continue to remain blind to the problem,
> then we essentially say that this is not a community for those that see a
> problem.
>
> The human language has not yet evolved to be digital, just imagine if this
> was a conversation under a large tree on a meadow, how different this would
> have gone. Lets be excellent to each other. Love to all!
>
> PS: Big respect to woodpeck for hearing out those that had an issue with
> his language, we need more of this.
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 10:49 AM nicolas chavent <
> nicolas.chavent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20201215/51c16dd7/attachment.htm>