[OSM-talk] Fwd: Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community

Celine Jacquin celija at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 17:18:33 UTC 2020


Hello everyone
Thank you for your answers.

And thanks for the supportive messages.

I will give a general response, trying to cover all the points that I can
extend, and trying to be clear despite my limited time and fluency in
English.

Above all, I would like you to become aware of the harshness of the
responses that reach me when directing myself to myself, when this
initiative is collective, and is that of a large number of women who are
already confronting and documenting, researching, have been analyzing and
drawing on testimonies for many years now (see the main mission of
Geochicas, the context in which this community was formed; see also the
different initiatives and activities in different countries of our fellow
signatories).
The responses in the regional chats, since yesterday, have reached varying
levels of sometimes intolerable discrimination, and also a general effort
to deflect the problem that we raise by pointing out all the details, flaws
in our declaration (made in 1 day between people who have already a great
workload, because no, a large number of us are not people from the
privileged circle of corporations closely linked to OSM located in rich
countries, a common criticism in chats).
Many members of Geochicas testified that they did not have the energy to
take part in the debate on lists and chats, because of the level of
aggressiveness that can be seen there.

This to come back to the point already shared many times in all possible
communication channels: women, from southern countries, OSM members, are
materially limited to participate in all the activities that we would like,
in particular the activities of high levels such as participating in the
board, and animatedly limited by aggressiveness of any type, direct or
indirect, frontal or underlying, in all types of communication.

Reading the reactions to our initiative since yesterday, as well as the
numerous invitations to make my own copy of OSM and leave it (we will
document these comments in an organized way for those who do not believe
it), demotivated me to participate in the board meeting today, and affected
for the next few days surely, but also, deeply disappointed by what I
generally experience as a beautiful commitment and a nice community (when I
participate little in the debates and do not realize what is happening
there).

Some concrete points to your answers:

- Directly targeting a person who expresses herself clearly on behalf of a
community, deliberately mistaking the interlocutor, is equivalent to
looking for a target rather than establishing a dialogue.

- Our statement is not a direct and personal reaction to Frederick's email.
His email is simply an incident that motivates us to react again, in a new
way, in the continuity of our different actions on this same line. Nothing
to do with a strategy of avoiding the theme of the entry of representatives
of Facebook to the board. Nothing personal either. We are all convinced
that an individual who makes unfortunate choices in his expression (this
also happens to anybody and we strive to recognize it), can also be a
valuable member of OSM. This does not change our point at all.

- We are not talking specifically about quotas, we invite the OMSF to think
collegially about solutions and to integrate various people in the search
for a solution, by adapting to the limits of these people to be able to
participate in it also (therefore seek real solutions to the participation).

- We did not have time in 1 day to think of the right support to share this
statement. Google is clearly not a good solution. The statement shared
yesterday due to the board meeting is a draft, it will then (very soon) be
posted on the wiki.

- As has already been said, you cannot explain to a perpetually offended
group, which expresses it as such, that the remarks which offend them are
not offensive. If a person is offended, it is because the terms of
collective expression must be reviewed. Without it, you assume without
saying it that you do not want to give voice or take into account what
these people are telling you and what they are experiencing.

- Diversity is clearly a large and complex issue, and we all fail at one
level or another. But working to improve diversity means being open to
petitions and always improving our rank of understanding it. Criticizing
the search for diversity by demonstrating the limits of others is what I
can call: sabotaging this search for diversity.
The correct way is to always humbly re-read our own words when someone
points out an offense.
Considering the fact of not offending anyone in such a large community
utopian, would that be a way of saying that it is pointless and useless to
work to improve the inclusiveness of our modes of expression? Is there an
excuse to continue to be violent on any scale without limit? I also believe
that it's hard not to offend anyone and to understand everyone's codes, but
the secret to the recipe lies in *being willing and trying, more and better
all the time, in good faith*.

- We generally, all life, "assume good faith" from people, which is a way
to normalize violence. But there are limits, and the accumulation sometimes
luckily leads us to try to improve things. I personally wonder why it is so
difficult to accept to try to improve things and improve our relationship
skills in a community project. Improving is only a positive notion. So why
do we read so much resistance? I hope this will serve to lead people to
self-questioning.
This can lead us to a wider debate: should violence be a context that we
must embrace, and develop our skills to tolerate and endure it, and to live
the traumas that it produces to us, and to reproduce the same on more
people? Or should we try to eradicate or at least reduce violence in our
behavior?


Thanks for your patience in reading this large message.
Best


Céline Jacquin


El jue, 10 de dic. de 2020 a la(s) 07:42, arnalie faye vicario (
afsvicario at gmail.com) escribió:

> Hello/kumusta,
>
> What an overwhelming response!
>
> This is my first time to email thru the global osm talk; it really takes
> true grit to join the conversations, huge thanks to the people who inspired
> me and sparked the flame.
>
> I will keep it short and redirect you to a (short) OSM Diary I wrote on
> Why WOMEN are pushing for a safe and inclusive space in OSM:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/arnalielsewhere/diary/395064
>
> A slide from @mapmakerdavid states "it takes good relationships to
> navigate an ocean.”
>
> =Arnalie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 10, 2020, at 8:01 PM, James <james2432 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> > The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact.
>
> >Right, this is true. Sadly true. Something I also know from Linux
> Communities and other Open Source/Open Data Communities.
>
> Same in programming and IT fields, firefighters, mechanics, carpenters,
> construction workers, taxi drivers, etc etc...
>
> Now is it a simple lack of interest in the field? Gate keeping?
> Discrimination/Sexism? Is it because of tradition that is still lingering?
>
> We should work with other humans and see why as well as question ourselves
> what can we do/change?
>
> We should treat other fellow humans, despite sex, race or country of
> origin, as we would want to be treated.
>
> Would you like to be put down based on your employer, despite your
> knowledge? Probably not, then don't do it
>
> Would you like to be put down based on your genitalia, despite being quite
> knowledgeable? No? Then don't do it.
>
> On Thu., Dec. 10, 2020, 6:38 a.m. tilmanreinecke--- via talk, <
> talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> > The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact.
>>
>> Right, this is true. Sadly true. Something I also know from Linux
>> Communities and other Open Source/Open Data Communities.
>>
>> > The simplest explanation for this is the systematic institutional
>> hostility towards women in the OSM community.
>>
>> I did not hear about something like that what can be called "systematic".
>> Are you sure that we have something like that in OSM? If yes, then please
>> point to where that happened. I am pretty sure that this is not something
>> systematic. I know women not feeling this way as you because OpenStreetMap
>> is an open and welcoming community.
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Sören
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic
>> Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community
>> From: Clay Smalley
>> To: Celine Jacquin
>> CC: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org,osm
>>
>>
>> I'm noticing a pattern here in the replies to this email:
>>
>> Only men have replied. This is, unfortunately, par for the course on the
>> OSM mailing lists. The lack of discussion by non-men is an undeniable fact.
>> The simplest explanation for this is the systematic institutional hostility
>> towards women in the OSM community. The replies themselves are the best
>> evidence of this.
>>
>> These men replying have taken it upon themselves to explain to a woman
>> what constitutes misogyny. News flash: you do not get to decide what
>> offends other people. If you are a man, misogyny will never happen to you
>> by definition. If you are a man, you have never been, are not, and will
>> never be a victim of misogyny. This isn't your area of expertise. Listen to
>> the experts.
>>
>> Some men replying have even mentioned how this draft letter hurts their
>> feelings. These men need to slow down and consider for a moment that their
>> temporarily hurt feelings are less important than the safety of women.
>> Men's feelings are irrelevant to issues where women are victims.
>>
>> As far as I know, various OSM-affiliated groups have codes of conduct,
>> but there isn't one governing these mailing lists. We need to adopt a code
>> of conduct yesterday.
>>
>> -Clay (they/them)
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 2:13 PM Celine Jacquin <celija at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everybody
>>> I hope you are all well
>>>
>>> We, several groups, chapters, organizations and individuals, have
>>> reacted to the conversation in the osm-talk-list (
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085692.html)
>>> considering that it is an incident symptomatic of the problem we have faced
>>> for many years in the community, which is one of the greatest obstacles to
>>> diversity at all levels of OSM. Time to make a real change.
>>> That is why we have developed a beginning of statement on the desirable
>>> mechanisms to work solidly on the rules of coexistence and improve
>>> diversity.
>>>
>>> We bring it to your attention and invite anyone who feels represented to
>>> sign it. Translations are in preparation (any help is welcome):
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/130JCTX9ve4H4ORXznmIVTpXiN3TX8nRGA8ayuTZ9ECI/edit?usp=sharing
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of the signatories
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Céline Jacquin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20201210/4bdf7ab2/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list