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

Stephan Knauss osm at stephans-server.de
Thu Oct 7 06:47:32 UTC 2021


Hello Amanda,

I think I understand your point. I'll leave your full post as a quote 
below for reference.

I have mixed feelings about the level of political involvement OSMF 
should do. Should we also care about environmental protection? Or other 
topics? We have to be careful avoiding being bound to political ideas 
too far from OSM.
Main focus of OSM is mapping. Mapping should be fun. And mapping happens 
on a global scale. Mapping happens by humans.
So yes: Diversity is in our basic interest as mappers are the core of OSM.

Holding a global conference in a place where not all people are welcome 
(or worse: not safe) is clearly against our ideas of mapping the world.

The trademark policy still seems to be the wrong place to enforce this.

Imagine for example that in a very repressive country like Luvania there 
is still a small open minded community of mappers. They could still use 
the mark OpenStreetMap for their local community meetings and help 
spreading openness. And they could use the mark to hold a local conference.

I consider this beneficial.

If they would like to hold a global conference at the capital and 
international visitors face the danger of being arrested on arrival due 
to being gay, the SOTM committee should still consider this in the 
application process and decide against this location.

So part of the evaluation process should be an assessment regarding the 
safety of visitors taking into account multiple factors like health, 
crime rate, or violence against foreigners or . This would then also 
exclude holding a global conference in eastern Germany where 20% of the 
population vote for the party of an open Nazi and violence and 
harassment against people of color or people with different religions 
happen frequently.

Adding a policy/checklist to the evaluation process of venues of a 
global conference seems a good idea. It could define hard "de-railers" 
and topics which would give bonus/penalty points in the evaluation.
Publishing such a check-list beforehand can also express the idea of 
global mappers as a core principle of OSM.

Stephan

On 06.10.2021 23:09, Amanda McCann 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)?
>





More information about the osmf-talk mailing list