[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?

Mon Nov 1 20:02:18 UTC 2021

It seems unusual that the beginning of this email thread begins with: the
board has decided the following, but it is not what I asked for. And then
the reponses started re-litigating the issue. I would have preferred a
simple reporting of the result matter of factly, without the editorial
addition. I believe the fact is the decision was made, now it is time to
move on.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 2:34 PM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
> 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 listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20211101/35982da4/attachment.htm>