In the context of the 2020 OpenStreetMap Foundation Board Election,
- The Call to Take Action… has been collaboartively produced and endorsed by hundreds of individuals and dozens of organizations from OSM, Open Data and FreeSoftware mouvements
- It triggered discussions Archive as well as a Board decision
Below reads a few thoughts on the recent email conversations [1] at the origin of the “Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behaviour in the OSM Community” which lead to this 10-Dec 2020 Board decision and the proposed course of action.
I added a position statement following a comment on the first version of this diary entry.

Position statement
Prior enforcing a CoC, the issue of violence in communication shall be worked out within the existing OSMF policy (Etiquette) since it has not been used so far up to its full potential.
I think that this election discussion and the mobilization around the Call to Take Action created in the community more awareness if not a new ethos which most likely will result into more attention to actual/potential violence in communication. This may change positively our conversational style. Shall an issue arose, it’s more likely that it will be pointed out and triggered this open informal collective moderation process we witnessed around Frederik’s post. Shall this informal collective moderation does not work out, then the formal moderators will act following our Etiquette.
Prior moving to CoC, we shall give collective intelligence powered by this new ethos with the backing of full usage of our OSMF etiquette and tools its chance and we shall learn from this experience. Meanwhile, we shall also deepen our understanding and keep building evidences around past cases of violence in communication across OSM as well as document experiences of CoC enforcements. We shall analyze and think through these materials. This shall contribute in return to more intelligence in our conversations, in informal collective moderation and in the action of formal moderators.
Shall violence in communication persists despite these efforts, then we can cautiously move to something new. In so doing, we would have trust human intelligence, we would have tested our Etiquette and tools, we would have a thorough and fact grounded shared understanding of the phenomenon, we would have the basis for a non (or a less) controversial move towards the adoption of CoC withing a less divided membership and community.
Below reads the full text of the initial diary note.

Although I have been relatively active mainly on 3 osm mailing lists (hot, hot-membership and osmf), I have never put forth so far how harsh this has been for me. I felt it’s important to do so prior getting any further given the diversity topic around which revolve our whole conversation. I am not a native English speaker and I am therefore contributing from within a linguistic minority position: reading, thinking and writing is of course more time and energy consuming as well as surely frustrating when it comes to expressing oneself with subtlety. Although I happened to be portrayed as a “resilient” character within all the work environments I have been navigating these past 20 years across the academic, humanitarian and development sectors as well as OpenStreetMap worlds in more than 10 countries (Haiti and Africa), this is on the 3 above-quoted OSM mailing-lists that I have experienced the more violence of my entire life. This makes any email conversation a potential harmful experience I have to prepare myself for. This is specifically true during election times or at the occasion of governance matters. Most of the violence I experienced on the lists came from individuals signatories of the Call to action who belong to one of the signing organizations (HOT US Inc) through its Communication Working Group which is at the origin of the first version of this Call together with the Geochicas. Ironically during this past years (2015 onwards), none of those persons and none of the membership of this organization publicly deemed necessary to step in the course of violent and libelous email exchanges, nor reminded the OSMF Etiquette, nor triggered retroactively HOT US Inc CoC, the way they decided to act this 9-Dec 2020. This minority position did not prevent me from contributing my views and experiences when and where I found it appropriate to help shaping OpenStreetMap, but this is not without cost. There will always be a cost while engaging in a collective discussion specifically when governance issues are at play and that disagreements between members of a democratic collective have to be worked out within the agreed-upon conversation rules of a democratic framework, the question for us is to lower at max this cost.

Given the time it took me – while I belong to the “dominant contributor profile: white, Western and male [that is]” to quote the Call to action – to write this email after having read and thought through the exchanges and documents as well as refrained to jump too hastily in the conversation, it would be hard to deny that there are things that need to get fixed collectively to better handle violence in conversations and tend achieving more inclusiveness for a more diverse OSM. As a matter of fact, it’s equally impossible to disagree on any call to collectively work towards more inclusiveness and to strive for a more diverse OSM. This is the very root of the project and at the core of almost all the actions of the community.

Whilst sharing the overall aims of the Call to action (civility in conversation and diversity/inclusiveness), I nevertheless have disagreements on the approach, the envisioned solution, the proposed course of action of the Board and I have doubt about the sincerity of some of the signatories as well as their organization when it comes to the matter.

Frederik was in its full rights and fulfilling its civic duty as an OSMF member questioning a Board candidate working for a big corporation and formulating a voting recommendation shared by many in the membership (myself included).

This being said Frederik’s choice of words was inappropriate/offensive and rightfully pointed as such, collectively discussed and moderated in an open way throughout a process which allows for Frederik awareness and his sincere apologies. The lessons we can learn are many-fold: This episode demonstrates that in any communication, the conversational style matters: it conditions positively/negatively the reception of the message as well as it affects directly its author. Outside of any group moderation/sanction, any communication bears sui generis its own virtue reinforcing or weakening the legitimacy of the speaker. This goes for Frederik in this case. The episode demonstrates also within OSMF a collective ability to handle and overcome swiftly this issue in an open manner without having to get any further than step 2 of the moderation process put forth in the OSMF Etiquette [2]. That is to say without any intervention from a mailing-list moderator, any of the measures proposed in the Board decision, eg, instancing moderator team and forging the processes to appoint individuals with community buy-in, setting procedures for them to operate with some community consultation/approbation whose mechanisms have still yet to be figured out. Without any of the future recommendations from the LCCWG, DISC as well as the Call to action signatories. All of the Board proposed actions look “heavy” (with regards to how swiftly the issue got resolved in this conversation email), complex” to set up and to maintain while bearing the risk of some form of community control. We shall ask ourselves if this is worth allocating resources in this direction.

The way Frederik’s got singled out in the first version of the Call to action has been rightly defined as troublesome not to say more. For sometime, it was as if all Frederik tremendous merits in OSM were gone for one clumsy and idiotic sentence in one email out of the so many he has been tirelessly contributing for the sake of the project. Fortunately this time was limited thanks to edits made in the Call to action paired with email statements. Unfortunately, this is not going to be without traces and impact. While tackling seriously sexism, misogyny, and minority despise, we equally need to realize the consequences of our actions for the individuals involved and avoid any form of delegitimization. One may see some form of political manipulation and power games at play in this episode with vested interest into harming the legitimacy of someone as influential in OSM as Frederik. I went through such experiences with Severin Ménard and some other members of HOT US Inc and we saw our reputation and merits damaged or endangered over time in this organization and abroad as a result.

The second point of method I found problematic in the Call for action is its mixing of the various minority situations which hampers its critical effectiveness while making it less easily actionable. Aren’t the categories too broad? Can’t they be subject to further analyzed? Do all minorities share the perspective of women? Is there only one woman perspective in OSM? What about intersectionality with power, wealth? The same applies for the “dominant contributor profile: white, Western and male” at the heart of the dynamic of power in OSM: which Western nationalities have been at the OSMF Board so far? English is a barrier for a significant number of French mappers even for some at the OSM France Board, do they work equally as “gatekeepers” of the “Old” OSMF as other nationalities which had been present at the OSMF Board (UK, US and Germany for example)? This being said, I understand that the whole document is work in progress, meant to state an issue, formalize thoughts, gather resources, help us get going and feed OSMF Board, LCCWG, DISC and mappers and as such is valuable.

The third point of method I found problematic in the Call to action, the Board decision which is also featured in some emails is the status of the body of evidences/facts on which is based the diagnosis of:
- the unhealthiness of the OSM conversational spaces: “It is time to stop asking our colleagues for more “evidence”” (Tyler’s email [3])
- the necessity for changing the course of actions: “In the Board’s role of service to the community, it is also clear that “business as usual” doesn’t work anymore.” (Tyler’s email [3])

Shall we want to collectively move forward with a shared understanding of the dynamics at work across the conversational spaces of OSM, there’s a need to continue elaborating/refining the existing body of evidence. This is especially true for those structurally (unconsciously) in a position of power which prevents them from or makes it hard for them to realize those logics. To get an idea of the “toxicity” of email conversations, can’t we produce an archive of email threads assessed/deemed “offensive” to get some ideas of metrics and shares over the wealth of emails exchanged on the lists? Those emails could be commented upon, categories and typologies built, guidance (developing into dos and don’t) could be derived and assist in helping all parties to better understand each other. The first action point of the Call to actions is to enforce a Code Of Conduct (CoC). This is a controversial topic in OSM and in OSMF as proven this year as well as earlier in the 2015, 2017, 2018 Board elections. This is also a topic on which, again, we are lacking knowledge about experiences of its enforcement across OSM lists and fora. We are as well deprived of systematic knowledge as per the current moderation experiences across the various lists. Reading from the Board resolution this lack of knowledge is also true of the OSM Etiquette. Finally, is there not a need to take into account the resources required to the establishment of both group moderators, enforcement of Etiquette and CoC as well as the risks of some forms of community control they yield.

It’s impossible when it comes to cases related to CoC enforcement within OSM not to look at its genealogy across HOT US Inc in the context of OSMF Board elections. The idea of establishing/enforcing a CoC for OSMF and across OSM conversational spaces on the model of what was accomplished in HOT US Inc in 2015/2016 following 2015 OSMF Board election:
- It was first put forth in 2017 OSMF Board election, see emails [4,5]
- It surfaced again in 2018 OSMF Board election, see emails [6,7,8,9]
In a nutshell (anyone can refer to the above-listed emails for details), the CoC has been used in HOT US Inc to control the membership and get rid off a minority of French-speaking members of the organization active at its incorporation in 2010 or at its very early days in 2011 whose contribution was instrumental in positioning the organization at a stage where it could continue to grow from 2014 onwards. Ironically, the conflict was about the focus and magnitude to put on support programs to local communities though grassroot agile low cost operational schemes paired with organizational and governance support action versus largely funded programs as well as the horizontal organizational model vs an hierarchical one. Despite troublesome emails (liable to complaints as per HOT US Inc CoC) sent for example by Mikel Maron ([6]) or Dale Kunce ([8]) during 2018 OSMF Board election to which I replied ([9]), no CoC got activated within the organization. Lastly, even for a well funded and functional NGO like HOT US Inc, it seems that the human resources to follow up CoC complaints prove to be somewhat challenging. A CoC complaint (see [6] for details) started May 2017 got terminated Jan 2019 for the following reasons: ““Sounds to me like the process for CoC complaints at HOT US Inc, of which there is one, might not have been followed for whatever reason (usually lack of volunteer time in the roles).” (see Blake Girardot’s email [7] for details).

This being said, it’s impossible not to acknowledge that, through this Call to action, an important number of persons and organizations are re-stating their willingness to see action from the OSMF Board these topics which have been at the core of the project since its beginning. Without minimizing these organizations and these individuals, it would be important to gauge which share of the OSMF membership they represent. It would also be important for the Board to consider organizing a survey on this topic framed so that one can state not supporting the design and enforcement of a CoC while sharing the objectives set forth in the Call to action.

The Board decision to task LCCWG and DISC with following on the Call to Action makes sense as well as involving its willing signatories. It would be worth it to also reach out to the individuals who showed an interest in the topics without endorsing the Call to action so that they can be part of this exercise.

Prior to taking any decision that would change moderation methods across OSM conversational spaces, it’s paramount to my eyes to give ourselves time to mobilize evidence, time to share, time to discuss and time to decide (vote) if the OSMF shall change and enforce a CoC.

Since the first days of my OSM journey, I had been striving for diversity and inclusiveness in OSM mainly across Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa, first at the United Nations (2007) first, then within the informal OSM collective “HOT project” I co-ideated (2008), the US NGO HOT US Inc I co-founded (2010-2014) and from 2013 onwards in the collectives Projet EOF and Les Libres Geographes I co-founded. I have been always operating at grassroot level, horizontally, working mainly through capacity building towards local empowerment. I encouraged in Western Africa OSM activities around gender as early as 2015. I had always been cautious to provide for safe spaces in all the spatial collectives set up for the over 60 projects I co-implemented in over 10 countries over the last 10 years. I am aware (although I can only claim a part of direct experience) of some of the “violent” dynamics reported in the Call to action. But I am not in favor of a CoC for the OSMF and its generalization to all OSM conversational spaces. I don’t see how they can solve the issues and I experienced too well how such tools can be used for membership control in any organization or collectives. I’d rather think that offensive communications singled out badly their authors whose credibility/legitimacy is diminished especially in our communities. This with shared core values, a continued commitment to collectively react to violence in communication and the existing list moderation procedure shall be sufficient gears to make progress.

I’d see this fairly “free” approach to organizing conversation around OSM complemented by the thematic safe places already put in place by collectives of different minorities. This would echo what works in social activism. Minority groups can choose to organize themselves from within their virtual or physical own self-governed (and therefore safe) spaces when needed. Aside from these collective “internal” experiences, these minority collective can decide (or not) to interact with all the other segments of the social movement within which the sensitization to the questions of minorities progress.

Lastly, I think it might be worth harnessing more the potential of intersectionality [10] while looking to minority dynamics. Connect identity to economic/business power and work towards preserving OSM and OSMF autonomy from their logics. This ultimately brings us back to the initial email by Frederik about big corporation influence.

I hope that this email can help us in our current conversation and navigate better towards achieving a more civilized, more inclusive and more diverse OSM.

Best, Nicolas

[1]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-December/085736.html
[2]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette
[3]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-December/007590.html
[4]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-December/004590.html
[5]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2017-December/004740.html
[6]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005731.html
[7]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005737.html
[8]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005738.html
[9]: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2018-December/005764.html
[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality