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

[Mikel Maron]

Thanks for comments everyone. This topic has also been under discussion with the OSMF Board and the SotM WG for the past 3 months. You can see some of that in the minutes.

* https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2021-08-13#OSMF_policy_for_.E2.80.9CState_of_the_Map.E2.80.9D_trademark_grants_for_places_which_are_LGBTQ-unsafe
* https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2021-08#OSMF_policy_for_.E2.80.9CState_of_the_Map.E2.80.9D_trademark_grants_for_places_which_are_LGBTQ-unsafe
* https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2021-09-10#OSMF_policy_for_.E2.80.9CState_of_the_Map.E2.80.9D_trademark_grants_for_places_which_are_LGBTQ-unsafe

We landed on a short set of principles to guide a decision on this topic. I think this is consistent with much of the discussion on this thread.
* Safety of all attendees at OSMF events is paramount
* Decisions require good guidelines, but also flexibility and discussion
* Local events have different expectations than the global event
* All working groups need freedom to determine how to implement their mandate

In our September mid-month meeting we decided to formulate a motion to vote on "a policy where safety is ensured for everyone who wants to attend an OSM conference. How the policy will be implemented, will be decided by the SotM-WG."

Here is the current, non-final draft of that motion.

> OpenStreetMap welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. This is enshrined in our Diversity Statement https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Diversity_Statement. There are places in the world where people with certain attributes may face discrimination or are systematically made to feel unsafe.
>
> Applications to host a SotM should describe and assess the risks in that location for certain vulnerable populations, and certify that State of the Map will be safe for all attendees.
>
> The OSMF will host global State of the Map conferences in places where the safety of all segments of the population is ensured. And in granting trademark licenses for local State of the Map conferences, organizers must address and do everything in their ability to ensure the safety of all segments of the population.

Thank you
Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Thursday, October 7, 2021, 06:58:52 AM EDT, Niels Elgaard Larsen <elgaard at agol.dk> wrote: 





Amanda McCann:
> Hello OSM friends,

Events should be as open as possible to everyone.
But I am not in favor of formal rules.

There are a lot of considerations, and there may not be a place that works for 
everything and everyone.

E.g., some locations will exclude potential participants because of visa requirements.

Or the travel expenses will be too high for some.

Or it will take too much time. E.g., if I travel to the US now, I first have to spend 
14 days outside Schengen.

Minoritized groups such as anti-vaxxers will have difficulties attending events in 
many regions for some time.


We should rely on common sense.

> 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)?
> 


-- 
Niels Elgaard Larsen


_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk