I just want to respond to those who claims that “OSMF failed to run a conference this year.”
OSMF didnt fail to run a conference this year, SotM WG operates it.
OSMF honored SotM WG’s decision to not run a conference this year… and in my opinion, SotM WG (and OSMF) succeeded in breaking the status quo and honored diversity and inclusion in this decision. And I think that is a win.
This I agree with, and will indemnify OSMF from the SotM WG decision. There was no easy or correct way for OSMF to handle that (if OSMF overruled SotM WG, there would likely have been even worse consequences).
I’ll agree that something was broken, but it was not (only) status quo 
.
What worries me, is that if OSMF/SotM WG refuse to even acknowledge that there was a problem and that it could’ve been handled better, then there is no chance of improvement and handling it better next time.
What? I might be misunderstanding that, but you seem to be saying it is good that there is no SotM? Because it is better that there is no SotM at all, then if there is one that is only somewhat [1] more diverse then previous ones?
Please tell me I am not reading that correctly. Shouldn’t it be, by the same logic, “a win” if syadmin team were to shutdown all servers, as it would “honor diversity and inclusion” by making sure that everybody has the same access rights - i.e. that nobody is able to access to servers (instead of only disadvantaged people behind great Chinese firewall and North Korea being affected)?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for improving diversity where possible. If Cameroon was able to be chosen, that would’ve been great. But rejecting Kosovo because “Sure it is quite diverse from all previous SotM conferences, but that is not good enough if there exist some other even more diverse place, even if we are unable to organize SotM there” is just, ah, completely unlogical to me.
You know what would be even more diverse and inclusive than Cameroon? Antarctica. Should we cancel all future SotM until one can be organized in Antarctica? (this is just a rhetorical parable. Please do not consider it for real. The fact that I feed I need to emphasize that is telling something too.)
The solution, upon realizing that Cameroon was unattainable for this year, should’ve been to choose next attainable best diverse place, which was Kosovo. Or something else, but definitely not “no SotM”.
[1] even there I would argue that Kosovo would’ve been quite more diverse than western EU / USA. I might be able to understand if only other contender was UK or Italy or some other country which has hosted multiple SotMs already (but not really. Even “meh same country again” would’ve been better then “nothing”)… But Europe itself is so diverse in itself, even if it is technically one continent. Rejecting even the consideration of all that diversity, and even celebrating it as “a win for diversity and inclusion” is appalling to me.
I’ve been in a few working groups and always saw it as working for the OSMF. As such a WG failure is an OSMF failure. Trying to argue differently shows the flaw in the OSMF and WG structure/relationship.
If you’re not working for OSMF then why does any profit from SotM go to OSMF?
P.s. I am very much of the mindset that in any organisational structure, for successes you celebrate it at the lower levels (those who did the work) and when there is a failure it is the higher level that takes ownership for it. In this case the OSMF.
I should clarify perhaps that above I actually mostly meant “OSMF Board” when I said I indemnify “OSMF” for SotM WG decisions. (I do indemnify large parts of whole OSMF of course too, as vast majority of them were likely no more or less involved in that decision process than any random OSM mapper. But I obviously do not indemnify SotM WG itself, even if it is part of OSMF, as AFAICT they were the ones who made that decision).
Well, it is, according to the homepage. The OSMF (OpenStreetMap Foundation) arguably includes not only the board and working groups, but all (paying or free) normal and corporate and associate members too. So perhaps saying “OSMF” is (sometimes) including more that one meant.
While I agree that such mindset is good for employee morale and general public opinion (and thus very important for OSM which hugely depends on community) I wouldn’t want that to be interpreted as a permission to say “OK let’s get a few scapegoats to take the blame, name them the Board, and then just ignore any mistakes, sweep them under the rug and pretend they are fixed by assigning the blame”, as that would mean the problem would remain unfixed in the future.
To me, only those that actually made decisions that resulted in some outcome are actually responsible for it. So even if it would look nice that the Board that should publicly “take full responsibility” for any problem, it is only going to work if the Board acts on that responsibility (i.e. they identify the problem and take measures so it won’t repeat). Otherwise it would be just paying a lip service.
I’d much rather that the SotM WG (who as I understand made the “no SotM” decision) but also the Board actually:
It saddens me that (even at this late point of time) even that first milestone seems yet unattainable.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying “pick a scapegoat” to blame this on. I am just agreeing with the point some people are making that the fact that there is no SotM this year is a sign that something is failing in the OSMF+WG structure we have at present. I am pleased to see improvement suggestions coming from the OSMF and also alternative ideas from others. I see good bits and bad bits in both official and alternative proposals. I worry that all this is too late and has created space for something like Overture Maps which arguably OSM/OSMF should have been doing ourselves/themselves.
Just a reminder: The SotM WG is currently accepting bids for SotM 2024. 
If you want there to be more events like SotM, one can propose them!
It would be nice if SotM WG would at least clarify exactly what they’re looking for (and much nicer if they actually admitting the mistake and though it over). Current state of that SotM 2024 wiki (and in accordance with their “no SotM 2023”) seems to (still) say they don’t want anyone from Europe to apply, but I’m not at all sure from the wording (and reasoning given for 2023) if that is really the only requirement (i.e. if that “not diverse enough from last few SotMs” would disqualify Kosovo, it would surely also disqualify e.g. Australia or North America too) ?
Instead of “Meh, not enough diversity, most of the Europe is the same anyway” one could as well have said “Well, North and South Americas are connected, so they’re probably the same culturally too”. Such sweeping generalizations “because geography” are sooo wrong, it cannot be overemphasized.
Jumping from “Few of the lasts SotM were in Italy and Germany, and they are in Europe and somewhat similar, and we’d prefer some more diversity” to “…and thus next SotM must not be in Europe” conclusion is a huge (and completely unfounded) leap of generalization.
There is waay less diversity (in culture, language, religion, architecture, customs, etc. and yes even geography) between e.g. London vs. Toronto vs. Sydney (different continents notwithstanding) then between London (or any last recent European SotM cities) and Prizren (even if they are technically situated in the same continent - that’s completely unrelated technicality!)
Maybe they could rotate through the continents every year (except Australia and Antarctica obviously), with it being clear that in a given year a specific continent will receive some level of preference. I’m certain that many local chapters in Europe, especially Eastern Europe and the Eurasian region will be dissuaded or not even consider applying this year, and that is sad.
The point that @Matija_Nalis is making is that pretending every location within a continent is the same is simply wrong. I agree.
Yes. When I ran for the OSMF board, I made the same point and repeated it earlier in this thread.
What’s wrong with us? 
& just maybe, that rotation could also include Oceania? (either together with Australia or as a separate “continent”?) 
Yeah that confused me too. I assumed that was some autocorrect changing “Arctic and Antarctica obviously”, because otherwise that “obviously” is not at all obvious to me.
(I mean, as an European, I’ve been to equally many conferences in USA as in Australia, and reaching either sound equally problematic to me)
Diversity and inclusion is not only “everyone is welcome to attend” or “everyone can access and edit the map” but also addressing barriers and finding ways to solve them.
Until we recognize and acknowledge the barriers that hinders majority of people to participate (in this case, the systematic disadvantage of holding a “global” conference in one continent for years), then you can understand why, in my opinion, this decision is a win and has broken the status quo.
If anyone would like to take action and help, express your interest to join SotM WG by emailing sotm@openstreetmap.org. Thanks!
I think it’s clearly written; that in the first round, they only expect an African bid in 2024.
I hope that everything goes according to plan and that no alternative plan is needed.
Exactly, doesn’t make sense ‘rotating through the continents’ when Australia is a continent unto itself. It would be ‘Oceania’ @Matija_Nalis Also, nothing’s wrong with Australia. I have always wanted to visit, and have even dreamed of living there in the past. Absolutely gorgeous.
Um, which “majority” are we talking about here? I’d use term “significant minority” there if we are talking about African mappers (while it might be that that my estimate of community is completely off and USA+Eurasia are actually a minority of mappers, I sincerely doubt that). Or is it about some other community which is unable to visit Europe, but can quite easily visit Africa, and which represents majority of the “people” (OSM mappers?) at the same time?
Thanks for explanation, while it helps a little, it brings some more confusion.
I’d just state my opinion that using “continent exclusion” is rather poor proxy for “hinders majority of people to participate”.
That might have been decision of 2023, but looking at call for venues for 2024 that amanda posted it does not seem to be what it is saying at the moment.
It might be my cultural background (which is much closer to German “clear and blunt and thus perhaps hurtful truth” than American “fuzzy feather-handling”) but I’d really prefer some clarity there.
Also, as noted above, it is unclear what is meant by “region” in that “country in a region which was underrepresented in the history of SotMs”? Southeastern Europe / SEE is a real region with specific cultural, historic and financial things which seems grossly underrepresented (i.e. 0) in global SotMs, yet Kosovo bid (which is situated in SEE) was rejected (for still unclear reasons to me, as it fits stated agenda perfectly and was stated as “strong bid” if official results).
I’d love it was just a confusion on the order of “USA is all the same, so EU must be all the same, and by induction all other parts of Europe are likely also all the same”, as such research negligence can be easily corrected (hopefully I just did it, if one managed to read this far 
).
Sorry, but you’ve confused me again!
When I said that, I was suggesting that the SotM be held on a different continent each year e.g. Europe > Africa > Asia > Oceania > North America > South America.
You could then even split that up further into regions / zones e.g. Western / Central / Eastern Europe; Northern / Central / Southern Africa & so on. Just thinking about it very roughly, that comes up with ~20 “regions” worldwide.
Then schedule them in advance so 2025 SotM will be held in “Western Europe”, 2026 in “Northern Africa”, 2027 in “Western Asia” etc, so it will be up to the dozen or so countries in that area to plan things.
I mean, yeah, such policy would be clear and obviously without “playing the favourites”, so that would be plus.
I’m afraid it would however suffer from some serious issues too (e.g. what would happen if there is no local team in that region willing or able to help organize it? Would that region be skipped, thus messing up the schedule for all subsequent regions, making some of them unable to perform on new schedule, further amplifying the problem down the line?)
Yeah, that could happen, but with a “few” up to potentially 20 years notice that it was coming to “your” area, that should be sufficient planning time?
& if worse comes to worse & nowhere put’s their hand up, simply don’t hold one that year, & move on to next year’ venue as per schedule.
An oversimplification of two cultures bordering on caricature is not the reason for the lack of clarity you’re describing. Sorry to be blunt about it.