On 2020-12-10 19:49, Yves via talk wrote:
Niels, Arnalielsewhere post wasn't about mapping, the map is used to
illustrate something.
I agree with others comments pledging for more time to be taken to
read someone else's lines.
Then I struggle to see the relevance. The whole blogpost seems to be a
call against (apparent) male preference to take the short (and
dangerous) route, with extension that the male will only take the longer
less dangerous route to please the female.
I'm not sure how to apply that to OSM governance.
If it is about the points: 1: agree, 2: ok, noted. Which is one of my
fears when even looking at women, that they see me as someone who wants
to attack them, just because I look at them (i.e. see them, not "check
them out"). 3: yes.
So, which path do we choose to take? I can not answer that. I have taken
my own path in OSM and mapping and I think I added value to OSM using
that path. I also like to think I have never exhibited offensive
behaviour to women or others in OSM but that is a statment only others
can affirm.
So I really struggle to see the relevance. At least in my case. And I
struggle to see the underlying institutionalized method that seems te be
felt.
I also have to agree with user_5589's last comment to the blogpost. To
have certain seats allocated to certain groups of people will give
others more reason to say "you are only here because we have to have you
here, not because you have a valuable input on the matter". And that is
something we very much need to avoid.
It will also weaken OSM if you don't have the best person for the job.
And that person may be black, white, male, female, straight, gay,
catholic, muslim, facebook employee or independent, or whatever the
person identifies as.
Regards,
Maarten
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
