Jump to: content, navigation, search

Navigation menu

Board/Minutes/2021-08-13: Difference between revisions

(decisions/action items and draft minutes for some of the topics)
|''Suggested by Amanda McCann.''
<font color="blue">Minutes to be added.</font>
Amanda is wondering what the other board members think. She also has contacted the [[StateoftheMap_Organizing_Committee|State of the Map working group]] a few days ago - not received a reply yet.
<u>Suggestion</u>: Think about what is the appropriate course of action and discuss it on the board chat channel.
* Anything we do has to be done in an objective way - have to develop criteria about what a safe country is, there is the risk of going far.
* Would support excluding countries where the legal environment is such that there is a risk to the health, freedom and even lives of the targeted individuals.
* Some countries are socially/culturally hostile to such personal choices and we cannot do anything about the opinion of people.
* Will be controversial and we have to be careful about the wording - safety issue rather than cultural opinion.
* Turning it into guidelines and case-by-case evaluation diffuses the issue of what rules we are going to apply and softens the introduction of criteria - but at the cost of unclear rules.
* In Cameroon people go to prison for being gay, but you can be gay in Cameroon, as long you do not make enemies/etc. Dangerous situation.
* [[osm:State_of_the_Map|State of the Map (SotM)]] should be a safe space.
* Hard to come with criteria - even legality is problematic:
** Kenya: while there are laws and is not socially acceptable - the enforcement varies.
* <u>Suggestions</u>
** There should guidance in selection of location that includes criteria that the working group looks at and that proposals address on how to keep people safe in general. Should be emphasised that it is a factor in the decision of the location.
** Evaluation of local community applications in hosting the international SotM on case-per-case basis.
** Not suggesting to operate in objective criteria - would not work.
* Regional and national level SotMs - we would still want safety be a top priority, we wouldn't want to disallow a local community to have events, as it will be a detriment.
* Local context and scale matter. In many places it is illegal to map. India was such a place until recently.
* <u>On implementation</u>: Putting it in the trademark requirements would work but take into account that local chapters are not required to sign that form.
* Objective criteria should be useful.
* The board votes on granting trademarks to regional events that want to use the marks.
* You always have to exclude somebody, either local community or the queer people that live far away.
* Raised the issue to start the conversation.
* There doesn't seem to be a consensus.
* Discussion is about guidelines, criteria, beyond protection of only LGBTQ rights, women's safety.
* <u>Suggestion</u>: ThinkBoard members to think about what is the appropriate course of action and discuss it on the board chat. Approach needs serious channelthought.
== OSM website Terms of Use ==