Thanks all for the ongoing transparent communication.
My interpretation of the document was that it was asking for endorsement of
the “Path Forward” action items listed in the document and not any input
with regard to the catalysing incident. Perhaps just useful to point that
out.
Personally, endorsing the development of a Code of Conduct and
restructuring things to be more equitable are easy things for me to agree
with. Although endorsing how that is implemented should perhaps be a
separate matter.
As an org though I can see how OSGeo Oceania signing a document that has
ongoing edits could be difficult.
The actual form also slightly confused me as it seemed like an endorsement
of the OSMF-Diversity and Inclusion Statement rather than the Call to
Action itself.
I’ll also mention that OSMF created a Diversity and Inclusion Special
Committee (
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/index.php?title=Diversity_and_Inclusion_Special_Committee
) in January of this year.
It was unclear to me of the relationship between the Call to Action and the
committee. Perhaps I missed something though.
The 10 December update note in the document reads like the OSMF Board will
continue to work with signatories of the document to implement things.
So perhaps OSGeo Oceania signing that document is less important than a
discussion and decision on whether we wish (as an organisation) to be
involved in the development of the Code of Conduct?
I’m happy to defer to the board or an OSM SIG on that decision (with input
from anyone of course) and confident that they would represent us and
continue to communicate back to us on opportunities for input and
discussion.
Erin.
[Interpretation, comments, opinions, foibles and failings are my own]
>
>
>
> *From:* Oceania *On Behalf Of *Edoardo
> Neerhut
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 December 2020 10:54
> *To:* Martin Tomko
> *Cc:* oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OSM Community issue
>
>
>
> Thanks for initiating this Greg.
>
>
>
> And thanks for making the point about the local chapter Martin. An action
> item I have over the next week is to do a better job communicating the
> connection between us and the OSMF and getting the community conversation
> going again on our OSM. The SIG charter is one such example.
>
> I agree we should have a voice on this topic as well as the local chapter
> of the OSMF. Whether Celine's proposal is the right format, I'm not sure.
>
>
>
> At a personal level, I signed just now because I agree that there is an
> underlying issue with diversity and inclusion in OpenStreetMap. I put the
> caveat that I am wary of signing a document that is still evolving and
> prescribing solutions to hastily.
>
>
>
> As an incoming board member, I am honestly quite confused as to whether we
> can/should list ourselves as a signatory. Fully open minded on this and
> looking forward to hearing all points of view.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 at 11:28, Martin Tomko wrote:
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I fully accept your personal statement, just wanted to add one
> clarification: OSGEo Oceania is not a different community to OSM, and OSGEO
> Oceania IS the local chapter of OSM. We are not “just” an OSGeo local
> chapter, but also serve the OSM community ( Hence, also the FOSS4G SOTM
> conference, and the nascent OSM SIG).
>
>
>
> As such, I believe we have a stake, should have a voice, and help steer
> the OSM community in the direction we – the Oceania part of this community,
> desire it to move.
>
>
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> *From: *Oceania
> *Date: *Friday, 11 December 2020 at 10:57 am
> *To: *Greg Lauer
> *Cc: *oceania@lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject: *Re: [OSGeo Oceania] OSM Community issue
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Firstly, thank you for bouncing this issue by our community in the first
> instance. Many hands can make light work...
>
>
>
> As to the issue:
>
>
>
> The language and tone of the email that you referenced is offensive and
> should not be tolerated within any open source community.
>
>
>
> This type of incident is why communities have implemented formal Codes of
> Conduct to provide guidance to a community as to what is considered to be
> acceptable behaviour, together with the consequences of breaching that code
> of conduct.
>
>
>
> A good example of a COC that I shared recently is the Berlin COC [1].
>
>
>
>
>
> As to our potential response:
>
>
>
> I had a quick look at the referenced email and document.
>
>
>
> This is not our issue to sort out. This is an internal issue for the OSM
> community to resolve themselves.
>
>
>
> I believe that it is not appropriate for OSGeo Oceania to intervene.
>
>
>
> We should therefore refrain from comment.
>
>
>
>
>
> That said, this is a good example of why we need a clear understanding of
> how we relate with each other within our community. I don’t recall that we
> have seriously discussed the need for a COC within our community.
>
>
>
> I recall that people like Cameron Shorter have discussed the
