[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?
bgirardot at gmail.com
Tue Nov 2 09:01:58 UTC 2021
Thank you for moving this forward Amanda and thank you to the Board
for adopting a policy to try and ensure full participation in this
open mapping project. Diversity and inclusion = making the best map
On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 1:20 PM Amanda McCann
<amanda.mccann at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> OpenStreetMap Foundation
> Name & Registered Office:
> OpenStreetMap Foundation
> St John’s Innovation Centre
> Cowley Road
> CB4 0WS
> United Kingdom
> A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales
> Registration No. 05912761
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the osmf-talk