Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: ...Any moderation will be announced to those people I just mentioned, and not publicly. Why not publicly? On balance, it seems better to not call out individuals publicly which might only make things worse and make them feel more upset, which is not the purpose of a 'cooling off' period. I believe doing it this way is better because it makes it less personal. If it's public, it's more like making a child sit in the corner in front of the room, which is as much about humiliation/embarrassment as anything else. First, thank god for the new moderation policy. Second, to offer my thoughts on public/private announcement of moderation. I've been a moderator of the wikien-l list (English Wikipedia's main mailing list) for years, though not so actively recently. In practice, it's not that simple. By default, I don't announce moderation of people, except: - when people have been complaining about them, in order to quickly resolve the complaints - when the moderatee starts complaining to me personally, in order to avoid accusations of censorship etc. - when I want to make an example of a couple of people (ie, That's enough. I've put the following people on moderation to kill off this horrible topic.) - to pre-empt conspiracy theories If you don't announce moderation, then people can start to wonder what's going on, and they start to assume all sorts of other people are being moderated, when it's not the case. And when there has been a big noisy thread, and suddenly it just stops, people deserve an explanation. Moderating is not always easy, and can be very tedious. On wikien-l, it's performed by an appointed group. On numerous occasions I've found discussing individual cases with the other moderators to be helpful, particularly to check my own impartiality and judgment. SteveC may find it helpful to do the same. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
I think that you and I are using different definitions of theory. I am using the scientific definition of theory, an explanation of how a group of facts relate to each other. A theory, using that definition, continues to exist even once it has been proven. You are using the colloquial definition of theory, unproven speculation. Using either definition, forbidding discussion of a conspiracy theory could mean that a real conspiracy would be allowed to continue. However, I do agree that discussion of conspiracy theories has the potential to swamp a discussion forum, such as this mailing list. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation From :mailto:li...@gimnechiske.org Date :Mon Aug 16 01:50:39 America/Chicago 2010 If you can back your claim of conspiracy by some sort of evidence than we can conclude that it is not a theory anymore, independent if it is a realy conspiracy or not. It is easy to say something in the line of FBI plotted to assassinate JFK, but to prove it is harder, independente if they did or not. A On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: However, should someone uncover a real conspiracy, any attempt to reveal it to others would be discussion of a conspiracy theory, and therefore forbidden. Theory does not mean nonexistent; the fact that the theory of gravity exists does not mean that gravity does not exist. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: pdora...@mac.com mailto:pdora...@mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:31:36 To: talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: • No conspiracy theories ... could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy? Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy. no conspiracy theories seems clear. A real conspiracy is not a theory. conspiracy theories are always trolls -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Ok, so in the sense of Conspiration Theory I use the word theory in the way scientists use the word thesis, maybe I should start to call conspiration theories for conspiration thesis, but than nobody would understand that I mean conspiration theory. It is not my fault the word theory have been misquoted in so many regular expressions. A On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:03 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.comwrote: I think that you and I are using different definitions of theory. I am using the scientific definition of theory, an explanation of how a group of facts relate to each other. A theory, using that definition, continues to exist even once it has been proven. You are using the colloquial definition of theory, unproven speculation. Using either definition, forbidding discussion of a conspiracy theory could mean that a real conspiracy would be allowed to continue. However, I do agree that discussion of conspiracy theories has the potential to swamp a discussion forum, such as this mailing list. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation From :mailto:li...@gimnechiske.org Date :Mon Aug 16 01:50:39 America/Chicago 2010 If you can back your claim of conspiracy by some sort of evidence than we can conclude that it is not a theory anymore, independent if it is a realy conspiracy or not. It is easy to say something in the line of FBI plotted to assassinate JFK, but to prove it is harder, independente if they did or not. A On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:56 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.commailto: j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: However, should someone uncover a real conspiracy, any attempt to reveal it to others would be discussion of a conspiracy theory, and therefore forbidden. Theory does not mean nonexistent; the fact that the theory of gravity exists does not mean that gravity does not exist. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com mailto:j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: pdora...@mac.com mailto:pdora...@mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org mailto: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:31:36 To: talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com mailto: dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: • No conspiracy theories ... could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy? Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy. no conspiracy theories seems clear. A real conspiracy is not a theory. conspiracy theories are always trolls -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
2010/8/11 SteveC st...@asklater.com: Specifically, I point to the basics of mailing list etiquette: ... • No conspiracy theories ... could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy? Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: • No conspiracy theories ... could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy? Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy. no conspiracy theories seems clear. A real conspiracy is not a theory. conspiracy theories are always trolls -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
However, should someone uncover a real conspiracy, any attempt to reveal it to others would be discussion of a conspiracy theory, and therefore forbidden. Theory does not mean nonexistent; the fact that the theory of gravity exists does not mean that gravity does not exist. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria -Original Message- From: pdora...@mac.com (Pierre-Alain Dorange) Sender: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:31:36 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: • No conspiracy theories ... could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy? Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy. no conspiracy theories seems clear. A real conspiracy is not a theory. conspiracy theories are always trolls -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On 11/08/10 21:56, Liz wrote: There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf- talk or legal-talk or talk. I also find that is a problem with the mailing list, and when I contact the working groups. No definitive answer is provided, usually the discussion gets distracted to a side issue. Some answers are simply delayed because they depend on future events, and are not anyones fault. But for questions which have been addressed, I hope people will begin to reference the appropriate archived discussion to reduce repetition. This seemed to be a key point on that google talk on youtube that SteveC referenced [2]. Fortunately, the principle of assume good faith has appeared in the draft code of conduct. If someone raises a repeatedly raises a question, please assume they are sincere until they have been directed to the appropriate place in the archives. I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between myself and OSMF. In the Subversion project (to use the google talk's example [2]), discussions may begin privately and are then moved to the public forum. Decisions are taken by consensus of all contributors in the public forum. This is different from OSMF's approach, particularly with respect to relicensing [3]. OSMF's committee approach is appropriate for very complex issues, but as much as possible should be done in a broader forum (if necessary, lead by respected community members). I think OSMF and the LWG are working with good intentions, I just don't agree with their methods on occasion. But the role of OSMF is to support OSM [1]. By moderating the forums within well defined guidelines, I think they are fulfilling that role. I am not sure why the title Benevolent Dictator For Life is needed to moderate the forums. I would appreciate knowing what are the limits of this power? I expect it doesn't include the ability to override established OSM procedure. Perhaps the title OSM discussion moderator might be more appropriate, and enables SteveC to pass it along if necessary. TimSC [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL#Response_from_Mike_Collinson_on_ODbL_Adoption ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with mapping their village. Perhaps they don't realize the legal discussions have a good change of resulting in some of the data from their village disappearing. I know I didn't. How data in my village disappeared ? We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM. I'm one of the most quantity data creator (in my town) and i realesed all my adds/modification as PD... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote: How data in my village disappeared ? We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM. I'm one of the most quantity data creator (in my town) and i realesed all my adds/modification as PD... If any of the other people who mapped your village don't agree to the terms, their data will disappear. That includes any data of theirs that you modified. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/BDFL-Moderation-tp5413369p5416449.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Steve, On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: I plan only to moderate people (for 24 hours) after taking a poll of key people including Andy Allan, Matt Amos, Katie Filbert, Tom Hughes, Emilie Laffray, Frederik Ramm, Ivan Sanchez, Grant Slater and Richard Weait. If you think more than these would be good then let me know. Any moderation will be announced to those people I just mentioned, and not publicly. Why not publicly? On balance, it seems better to not call out individuals publicly which might only make things worse and make them feel more upset, which is not the purpose of a 'cooling off' period. Any one of those people I announce it to could announce it publicly if they want to. I am happy to listen to a different panel, if one constitutes itself. If I have full confidence in said panel, I'll consider handing over the power and stepping back. A question in the interest of transparency: will you be publicly *documenting* when a person is locked out for a period? I completely understand not calling the person out publicly on the list, but will you keep a record on the wiki or something (I am not so picky on the actual form of documentation) of who in this group voted on locking out a particular user and the specific reason? I know, I know, that is more s*** people need to do, and really do not want to. I ask because I see a need to keep this very transparent to not feed into a user's impression that they are being bounced for thinking differently, not misbehaving (whether or not I agree, I would like to know why). That is all. Regards, _AJS ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
At 2010-08-11 11:26, SteveC wrote: ...Any moderation will be announced to those people I just mentioned, and not publicly. Why not publicly? On balance, it seems better to not call out individuals publicly which might only make things worse and make them feel more upset, which is not the purpose of a 'cooling off' period. I believe doing it this way is better because it makes it less personal. If it's public, it's more like making a child sit in the corner in front of the room, which is as much about humiliation/embarrassment as anything else. Overall, I like the idea - circuit breakers generally prove to be a good way to stop a runaway in other fields. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Am 11.08.2010 20:56, schrieb Serge Wroclawski: Several people yesterday mentioned and requested a Code of Conduct. I have a draft of what several of us at OSM US were working on at: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcschwqz_36cgv47g88 This is a draft that was never voted on and needs revision, but touched on many of the wider community issues. I'd like to see something like this adopted by the OSMF for OSM. I think a Code of Conduct is the better way to proceed, by addressing the entire project in a way that's inclusive and positive. Let's work tgether to get that Code of Conduct in place, vote on it give it a try. If it works, we won't need our BDFL anymore, but for now, I think an immediate reactions like this is the only way to - hmm - cool things down. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: • If you've made your point already, you don't need to tell us all again Not sure how that's supposed to work. If someone on the list asks a question that's already been asked by someone else and answered, or expresses a misconception that's already been made by someone else and corrected, should we not make the reply public? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
I think I figured out what's been specifically bugging me about this. When I joined OSM about eight months ago, I knew vaguely that there was a license change process going on, and assumed the OSMF knew what they were doing. (I still think they know, but I now have concerns about what they're doing.) Later I began reading this talk mailing list, and began to understand the issues a little better. Had it not been for certain poisonous threads, I probably would have continued in my ignorance, since I had no reason to read the legal mailing list. So the older folks are getting annoyed with the threads. I admit that I'm starting to get annoyed too. But we have to remember that people are just joining now and don't have the same knowledge that we have. This is perhaps why it seems to some to be a scheme to quash dissent - it may not be intended that way, but it will have an effect of that sort for new mappers. (Yes, you can argue that they don't need to know because they've already agreed to ODBL/CT, but they have as much to lose when the tainted data is deleted. And we still have no idea of the general extent of that deletion.) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/BDFL-Moderation-tp5413369p5413657.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Am 11.08.2010 21:45, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: So the older folks are getting annoyed with the threads. I admit that I'm starting to get annoyed too. But we have to remember that people are just joining now and don't have the same knowledge that we have. I believe the LWG is doing a great job and I'm more interested in the technical part then in the legal, so I'm reading osm-dev. If it would be the other way round, I would read osm-legal -- but I don't. So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with mapping their village. That's why the special-interest-mailinglists are for and steve is right -- we should use them. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with mapping their village. Perhaps they don't realize the legal discussions have a good change of resulting in some of the data from their village disappearing. I know I didn't. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Steve, SteveC wrote: I plan only to moderate people (for 24 hours) after taking a poll of key people including Andy Allan, Matt Amos, Katie Filbert, Tom Hughes, Emilie Laffray, Frederik Ramm, Ivan Sanchez, Grant Slater and Richard Weait. If you think more than these would be good then let me know. I think less would be good. I am thankful for that token of trust (after having recently been dragged through the subject lines as a warmonger by someone else), but I'm afraid I have to decline the honour to be part of that tribunal. I don't support dictatorships - benevolent or not. Also, I don't perceive myself to have a clean record regarding obnoxious behaviour on the lists, so it would be wrong for me to judge that of others. I am also imposing a self-limiting, four week (28 day) period starting from when this warning period ends (in 24 hours) whereby, if I don't exercise my BDFL powers during that time, I will step back. I cannot help but wonder: For someone who can appoint himself, what exactly is the meaning of stepping back? So, please, have a think about what and where you are posting, and lets make talk@ a nice place to be again. I don't like your means, but I support the goal. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Simon Ward wrote: I see two problems in the threads so far: * The dissenters keep repeating themselves, with the same arguments already discussed to death This doesn’t help with: * The dissenters have some real issues that people keep ignoring or sidestepping. (The majority response to Australian concerns that I’ve seen is “well that’s you’re own fault” (and yes, I have said that previously)) There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf- talk or legal-talk or talk. The complete failure to answer some of these questions is some of the most irritating behaviour I find. I can cope with flames and bad behaviour. My generation was taught that words will never hurt you. I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between myself and OSMF. I'm not going to repeat my questions to prove they remain unanswered. Some are merely requests for factual information and some are requests for information on Board decisions. Being a member of OSMF did not assist me to get answers to the questions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Hey As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page suffice? I'm happy to abandon it and get back to coding if it's not needed in the new system of dictatorship (which I support). I've updated it to merge in various changes suggested by people, and especially lots of stuff stolen from the great US version. Steve On 11 August 2010 21:56, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Simon Ward wrote: I see two problems in the threads so far: * The dissenters keep repeating themselves, with the same arguments already discussed to death This doesn’t help with: * The dissenters have some real issues that people keep ignoring or sidestepping. (The majority response to Australian concerns that I’ve seen is “well that’s you’re own fault” (and yes, I have said that previously)) There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf- talk or legal-talk or talk. The complete failure to answer some of these questions is some of the most irritating behaviour I find. I can cope with flames and bad behaviour. My generation was taught that words will never hurt you. I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between myself and OSMF. I'm not going to repeat my questions to prove they remain unanswered. Some are merely requests for factual information and some are requests for information on Board decisions. Being a member of OSMF did not assist me to get answers to the questions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote: Hey As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page suffice? I'm happy to abandon it and get back to coding if it's not needed in the new system of dictatorship (which I support). I've updated it to merge in various changes suggested by people, and especially lots of stuff stolen from the great US version. The code of conduct is great, and I'd love to see you work on it further. I'd like see the community looking after itself, with a sensible escalation path. self control common sense advice from peers guidelines policies 'official' warnings interventions backstop What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty much non-existent, and things have broken down when the advice from peers isn't being taken on board. Hopefully very few people need to even get as far as requiring written guidelines on etiquette, but I guess it turns out we need them. Your code of conduct would play an important part of the guidelines / policies level. Steve has basically made himself backstop. All the things that come in front are more important to work on and get right, but at least now the buck has somewhere to (eventually) stop. I'd hope that nothing ever gets escalated that far though. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
I agree with all Andy said. Steve stevecoast.com On Aug 11, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote: Hey As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page suffice? I'm happy to abandon it and get back to coding if it's not needed in the new system of dictatorship (which I support). I've updated it to merge in various changes suggested by people, and especially lots of stuff stolen from the great US version. The code of conduct is great, and I'd love to see you work on it further. I'd like see the community looking after itself, with a sensible escalation path. self control common sense advice from peers guidelines policies 'official' warnings interventions backstop What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty much non-existent, and things have broken down when the advice from peers isn't being taken on board. Hopefully very few people need to even get as far as requiring written guidelines on etiquette, but I guess it turns out we need them. Your code of conduct would play an important part of the guidelines / policies level. Steve has basically made himself backstop. All the things that come in front are more important to work on and get right, but at least now the buck has somewhere to (eventually) stop. I'd hope that nothing ever gets escalated that far though. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:05:25AM +0100, Andy Allan wrote: self control common sense advice from peers guidelines policies 'official' warnings interventions backstop What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty much non-existent, and things have broken down when the advice from peers isn't being taken on board. Hopefully very few people need to even get as far as requiring written guidelines on etiquette, but I guess it turns out we need them. Your code of conduct would play an important part of the guidelines / policies level. Steve has basically made himself backstop. All the things that come in front are more important to work on and get right, but at least now the buck has somewhere to (eventually) stop. I'd hope that nothing ever gets escalated that far though. I couldn’t refrain from just responding to agree, so I’m doing it big style (needs monospace): # # # ## ### # # # # ### Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
Am 11.08.2010 20:26, schrieb SteveC: Despite the discussion resulting from my post yesterday, there continue to be individuals on the talk@ mailing list disrupting the community. Well, who is really disrupting the community?!? People like John Smith with a usually high volume output, or the people who are talking about a license change for years now, without doing the necessary steps to finish that change in any appropriate amount of time? The license status of: Not knowing what will happen and when going on for so long, has IMHO already done much more damage to the project/community, than what a John Smith alone can ever do to it ... So please don't ban people from the mailing list for this (as this will also create new problems), but finally fix the underlying problem!!! Regards, ULFL P.S: John, please don't take this personally - you were the obvious example! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On 12/08/2010 00:20, Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 11.08.2010 20:26, schrieb SteveC: Despite the discussion resulting from my post yesterday, there continue to be individuals on the talk@ mailing list disrupting the community. Well, who is really disrupting the community?!? People like John Smith with a usually high volume output, or the people who are talking about a license change for years now, without doing the necessary steps to finish that change in any appropriate amount of time? +1 The license status of: Not knowing what will happen and when going on for so long, has IMHO already done much more damage to the project/community, than what a John Smith alone can ever do to it ... +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 12:48 -0600, SteveC wrote: I agree on the transparency, but like you I'm not sure how to do it thought the way you outline is reasonable. Anyone know how other projects do it? How did subversion do it? most lists where this has been necessary announce the fact on the list 'so and so has been blocked for x no of hours'. The same policy is followed in IRC. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
