First, let me say that I do know Frederik personally, I have had pleasant dinners with him and hope to do so again post-pandemic. He has apologised for his poor choice of words, and I accept his apology.
The volume of attacks and hostile tone against Celine in reaction to the document she shared demonstrates exactly why OSM is not a welcoming community for the majority of women. For myself, I find the listservs to be the least welcoming part of the community. These comments are not enough to prevent me from mapping and participating, but they are discouraging and demotivating. A lot of people on this list are conflating systems of discrimination and inequality with hostile intent. Systems are not personal and are not about intent. Discrimination and inequality can be structural, and can and do take place without intent, sometimes by accident, sometimes due to structural inequities not within the immediate control of the actor(s) examining the issue. To make a non-technical analogy, if you step on someone's foot by accident, you still stepped on their foot, and their foot still hurts. Apologising helps, but it would be better if you didn't step on their foot in the future. If one group has shoes and another group does not, the group without shoes is more likely to be on the end of painful steps. How do you solve such a systematic problem? One option would be to give everyone shoes. Another would be for those with shoes to step more carefully. Right now, society demands that those without shoes do the work of dodging everyone else's steps, documenting a list of times they've been stepped on, and explaining why getting stepped on hurts. Underrepresentation of women and gender minorities, racial underrepresentation, geographic underrepresentation, these are all symptoms. If OSM did not systematically exclude these groups, these groups would not be underrepresented. Such a problem is not unique to OSM, nor is it easy to solve. Step 1 is to recognize the problem. A vocal contingent of the community is not willing to do that. I believe this contingent is vocal but not a majority of OSM, but overrepresented on the listservs. I would encourage those who are watching this firestorm to consider that the listservs are a very poor representation of the OSM community and the views of its members. I would also strongly encourage those watching to vote in the OSMF Board elections. Kathleen On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 11:25 AM <m...@marcos-martinez.net> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > as usual when it comes to this kind of complex topics I have the feeling that > people tend to writing about only that part which is interesting to them, > throw that piece into the arena and in the end there is a lot of confusion, > misunderstanding and no constructive way out. > > For this reason let me try to tackle things separately to get a clearer > picture. > > 1. The message by Frederik: The starting point for the whole debate, so we > should be aligned about its interpretation. It seems obvious to me, and not > only after further clarification by the author, that Trump's quote in NO WAY > reflects Frederik's mindset. Anybody suggesting this should be disqualified > from further debate as it completely lacks objective basis. One could then > argue that he could have backed the same argument, the same message with a > different quote, a different wording. That is right and it implies the > following: Whatever you say, no matter how valid your point is, no matter > what the context of the wording is and even if you are only quoting: don't > use words with a sexual connotation because the sole mention of it will > offend some people. If that's what it takes to make those people feel more > comfortable I am fine with it. To avoid misunderstandings based on cultural > differences regarding what is allowed I consequently encourage to create a > list of "undesirable wordings" so everybody knows what is acceptable or not. > > What really strikes me is that if Frederik had used a similar quote, e.g. "I > could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t > lose any voters", nothing of all this would have happened. This reminds me of > the censorship logic apparently used in US movies: You can show how people > kill, torture, severe limbs - but don't you dare show a nipple because that > could offend. > > Bottomline: We are not discussing a general offensive attitude nor an > individual offensive message, we are discussing the pure wording of a message. > > 2. The topic of Fredrik's message > > A real pity this is taking a backseat, especially because it is somehow > linked to what many people are apparently fighting for: Diversity, Open > Community, Inclusion etc. > > I´ll try to keep it short as it is worth a big debate on its own: This is > about Facebook. Their business model is based on the opposite of everything > this community should stand for. They represent the antagonism of a free, > self-determined, inclusive society. According to Amnesty International their > business model threatens human rights (1). There is almost no day we do not > hear about a lawsuit or scandal, too many to mention in this thread. Only > today I read that "Facebook's 'monopoly' must be split up, US and states say > in major lawsuits" (2). Personally I'd tag them as legal but criminal > organization. Now, this company has made the strategic decision to use OSM, > not because of our values but because they desperately need us to fight > Google in terms of map data. A clear manifestation of this is that after > Facebook purchasing Mapillary Google fights back and now lets anyone upload > Street View photos with smartphones. I have no doubt that as soon as we as > OSM are not needed anymore they will ditch us and in the meantime will try to > steer the project in a direction that serves their and only their interest - > in case these overlaps with others it it will be regarded as welcome side > effect. This is the context to better understand Frederik's indignation when > he feels that our project is being bullied around by someone who represents > this company, whether you agree with his point of view or not. Let me make > this clear: This opinion doesn't diminish the value of Michal's > contributions, done throughout many years in any way. It also doesn't mean > that certain departments of a company like Facebook may never do any good. > But when the mafia pays your salary and you come to a place like OSM don't be > surprised if you are met with distrust. Nothing personal. > > Where are the voices that loudly claim a paradigm shift towards more respect, > more diversity and more freedom? Where are those that so easily identify > aggressive and dehumanizing behavior in this discussion? > > 3. The statement: > > As it seems to be still a work in progress a can only refer to the version to > date. > > The title makes a clear statement, this should be about offensive behavior > and I strongly believe we are all in to eradicate it. The first thing that > chirps me is mentioning Frederik's message, tagging it as "offensive and > dehumanizing". As explained above these adjectives should be aimed at Donald > Trump, not Frederik quoting him. It would have been decent to at least > formulate that some people felt offended by the use of the quote, the > sentence which appears now in the statement sounds like a deliberate way > undermine the real sense of the Frederik's message. I am thinking loudly: Is > this the one example the originators come up with to pinpoint offensive > behavior? I am not so blind to believe it doesn't exist and THIS is all you > can come up with? Am am sure there are hundreds of real examples that show > how women or minorities are treated with contempt, please use those, > otherwise the good cause will fail its objective. I am sure there are many > white, male, westerners like me who have hardly ever encountered the behavior > you are trying to fight against and with this example you are providing > further arguments: If Frederik's message is supposed to be a shiny example > than we are actually pretty well off. > > The topic of offensive behavior is then mixed with advocating diversity. As > above, I believe we are all in for achieving this. I also strongly believe > that the lack of diversity has many very powerful reasons but offensive > behavior in our community has probably the lowest impact. Mixing things up is > never a good strategy. The statement mentions "spare time, senior positions, > confidence, access to technology, and fluency in English, amongst others". > Most of these parameters depend on the innumerable injustices that rule this > world. I imagine all people of this planet having a decent income, decent > education and decent living conditions and you don't need to be a prophet to > predict that this community will completely change. Unfortunately we as OSM > community have very little impact on these factors, which means we will have > to stick with a white, western, male vision of the map that doesn't represent > the world's diversity until then. Little impact doesn't mean "no impact", so > let's do what lies in our hands but let's be realistic and trusting the cause > of diversity uniquely in the hands of offensive behavior debate is plainly > unrealistic. Or is the suggestion that we, the privileged ones, step aside > and stop activities until we have reached a satisfactory degree of diversity? > > Formulated as it is I don't feel compelled to sign. > > Let's not forget: The map we are helping to build is one of the steps that > can help to make this a better place. > > 1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol30/1404/2019/en/ > > 2. > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/09/facebook-lawsuit-antitrust-whatsapp-instagram-ftc > > > Am 10.12.2020 18:18, schrieb Celine Jacquin: > > > > 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 > (afsvica...@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 <james2...@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@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-t...@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 <cel...@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@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> talk mailing list >>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
