[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] New policy adopted | Re: Should OSMF adopt a policy about State of the Map conference in places that are LGBTQ*/etc unsafe?

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Nov 1 19:25:36 UTC 2021


Am 01.11.2021 um 19:00 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
> That's why we have elected representatives to interpret these 
> guidelines in a sensible way.

We have elected board members to interpret these guidelines in a 
sensible way.

Small difference, but given the upcoming elections quite an important 
one. Directors of a limited company do -not- represent whoever elected 
them, their role is to manage the company in a fashion that benefits the 
company and furthers its goals, not those of the members that elected them.

Simon

>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 1:46 PM Mateusz Konieczny via osmf-talk 
> <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>     "where the safety of all segments of the population is ensured" is
>     extremely strong
>     and with sufficiently strict interpretation it would exclude all
>     locations worldwide.
>
>
>     Nov 1, 2021, 18:11 by amanda.mccann at osmfoundation.org:
>
>         Hello fellow OSMers,
>
>         At the last OSMF Board meeting a few days ago, the Board
>         adopted this new policy for how we will use the (“State of the
>         Map”) S otM trademark:
>
>             OpenStreetMap welcomes and encourages participation by
>             everyone. This is enshrined in our Diversity Statement.
>             There are, however, places in the world where people with
>             certain attributes may face discrimination or are
>             systematically made to feel unsafe.
>
>             The OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF) will only host global
>             State of the Map (SotM) conferences in places where the
>             safety of all segments of the population is ensured.
>
>             Applications to host a SotM should describe and assess the
>             risks in that location for certain vulnerable populations,
>             and must certify that State of the Map will be safe from
>             systematic or institutional discrimination for all
>             attendees. Details of how this is assessed is the mandate
>             of the State of the Map Working Group.
>
>             Local and regional State of the Map conferences should do
>             everything reasonably possible, in their local context, to
>             ensure the safety of all segments of the population. It is
>             recognized that in some regions and locations safety
>             cannot be guaranteed for all vulnerable groups, and that
>             this should not prevent a local or regional SotM from
>             being held. Applications for trademark licenses should
>             include a safety assessment. Details of the trademark are
>             the mandate of the Licensing Working Group .
>
>
>         While it is not exactly what I personally suggested at the
>         start, this is the decision of the board, and represents the
>         consensus of the discussion of the board, working groups, and
>         community.
>
>         This will apply to the global state of the map, and SotMs from
>         Local Chapters via the Local Chapter Agreement §5.3, and
>         trademark grants to other organisations running regional
>         SotMs. It's good that SotMs will now have to do everything
>         “reasonably possible” (e.g. speaker/venue/attendee choice) to
>         ensure LGBTQ+ (& others) are as safe as possible “in their
>         local context”, while also ensuring “should not prevent a
>         local or regional SotM from being held”. And, obviously this
>         does not apply to events named “State of the Map”.
>
>         The minutes of that meeting haven't been written (nor
>         accepted) yet, but they will be here
>         https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2021-10 in
>         due course. However I wanted to email yous sooner.
>
>         Onward and upwards fellow OSMers. 🙂
>
>         On Wed, 06 Oct 2021 23:09 +02:00, Amanda McCann
>         <amanda.mccann at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>             Hello OSM friends,
>
>             So here's an idea... I've previously complained when an
>             organisation
>             holds an event in a place where it's “illegal to be gay”
>             and claim that
>             the event is a “safe space”. Since I'm on the OSMF Board,
>             I would be
>             wrong for me to continue to complain about other
>             organisations and not
>             try to suggest such a policy for the OSMF.
>
>             The OSMF grants a trademark licence (for the “State of the
>             Map”
>             trademark which the OSMF legally owns) to regional event
>             conferences,
>             and legally, the OSMF runs the annual State of the Map
>             conference.
>
>             There are several different wordings of this policy
>             possible. My
>             initial idea of a policy is: “you can't have a SotM for
>             [REGION] in a
>             venue if same-sex sexual activity is illegal (& that's
>             being enforced)
>             there, *and* there is a place in [REGION] where that is
>             legal (or
>             illegal & not enforced)”. This covers bi/pan/queer/etc people.
>
>             I can't easily think of a simple rule for trans/gender
>             identity issues
>             that's as clear cut for the very basic level (e.g. many
>             countries have
>             required gender segregated toilets for a long time and the
>             laws
>             requiring ”birth sex” are new and uncommon, legal gender
>             recognition
>             might not be so relevant for a visitor, etc) so I'll stick
>             to this for
>             now. I am OK with “State of the Map [COUNTRY]” happening
>             in a country
>             where it's illegal everywhere. My goal is to prevent
>             anyone having a
>             *legal downgrade* with “State of the Map”.
>
>             Many in OSM have spent a long time improving things for
>             minoritized
>             groups, and maybe this is just another step in that
>             process. I am only
>             mentioning “illegal to be gay” because it's a simple,
>             clear standard. I
>             think it could be benefitial to include other standards
>             too (e.g. I
>             believe some countries forbid women from driving). I am
>             focussing on
>             LGBTQ+ issues because that affects me personally, and I
>             know a lot
>             about it. I encourage other minoritized people to speak up
>             if they want.
>
>             So what do yous, the wider OSM(F) community think about
>             the OSMF
>             adopting this policy (or something like it, or not
>             adopting anything
>             new policy)?
>
>             -- 
>             (P.S.: I recently changed my name)
>
>             A. McCann
>             Secretary
>             OpenStreetMap Foundation
>
>             Name & Registered Office:
>             OpenStreetMap Foundation
>             St John’s Innovation Centre
>             Cowley Road
>             Cambridge
>             CB4 0WS
>             United Kingdom
>             A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and
>             Wales
>             Registration No. 05912761
>
>
>         -- 
>         A. McCann
>         Secretary
>         OpenStreetMap Foundation
>
>         Name & Registered Office:
>         OpenStreetMap Foundation
>         St John’s Innovation Centre
>         Cowley Road
>         Cambridge
>         CB4 0WS
>         United Kingdom
>         A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales
>         Registration No. 05912761
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         talk mailing list
>         talk at openstreetmap.org
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20211101/7ade1ca2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20211101/7ade1ca2/attachment.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list