Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Steve Bennett-3 wrote: - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just mapping quietly. I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the license changes (and vice versa). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5418977.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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
That wasn't my intention. To be clearer: * Some of us are supportive of the license changes, * some of us pull our heads in and just map quietly. Now, I will go back to doing just that. Steve (apologies to talk-au for the mispost) On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: Steve Bennett-3 wrote: - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just mapping quietly. I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the license changes (and vice versa). -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5418977.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Please, if there's anything that you don't like, just ignore it, take your GPS go for walk/ride/journey. It really is that simple. Dave F. +1 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Great post, and excellent honeytrap: all the poisonous people flocked immediately to this thread and started debating it furiously. Some points: - verbosity/spamminess *is* disruptive. It takes a lot of time to read, and invariably someone will respond, causing more posts. Worse, it causes sensible people to tune out entirely, meaning threads consist of little more than spammy bastards rehashing old arguments. If you don't like it, don't read it is not a solution. - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just mapping quietly. - A moderator for the key mailing lists would be a very sensible step. I have volunteered in the past. No one should have the right to post whatever and as much as they like with no accountability. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Am 10.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Liz: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote: 'Poison' is opinion. I regard these efforts as attempted censorship take this back to legal-talk where it belongs don't reply to poisonous posts censorship would it be if posts were deleted (or not filtered on the ML server). Not Answering to posts is a decision that everyone can make for himself. If only 2 people are talking instead of 20, the noise generated is much smaller. Discussion needs to be free and widespread. And follow some rules. En exampl would be: here is not the place to talk about recipes, go to chefkoch.de for that. Its absolute ok to say please don't talk about technical details on the newbies@ list, please go to dev@. And the same way it's ok to say talk@ is not the place for license discussion, go to legal@. I can't see any censorship in that. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 11/08/2010 12:24, Peter Körner wrote: Am 10.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Liz: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote: 'Poison' is opinion. I regard these efforts as attempted censorship take this back to legal-talk where it belongs don't reply to poisonous posts censorship would it be if posts were deleted (or not filtered on the ML server). Not Answering to posts is a decision that everyone can make for himself. If only 2 people are talking instead of 20, the noise generated is much smaller. Discussion needs to be free and widespread. And follow some rules. En exampl would be: here is not the place to talk about recipes, go to chefkoch.de for that. Its absolute ok to say please don't talk about technical details on the newbies@ list, please go to dev@. And the same way it's ok to say talk@ is not the place for license discussion, go to legal@. I can't see any censorship in that. But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting more messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic. This is unacceptable. He also mentions having to deal with malcontents. Either he doesn't understand the meaning of the word or he really does want to get rid of those that disagree with him. Looking at the list that he sent, I have to say I've learnt more about OSM from those at the top than *any* of the key members. It's disappointing that he considers the key people to be write code, build things, maintain things and run our working groups. I thought this was a 'crowd' project where we all contributed. I consider the key element to the success of OSM to be the actual collection, collation uploading of data. For those that feel sucked, emotionally drained, distracted, paralysed defocused then the solution is simple - get over yourselves don't read the forums! Points from Steve C's summary: - slow you down - the forums only do that if you let them. Solution - don't read the threads! - do not let people reopen old discussions Why not? if there been no agreed solution to a problem it *should* be re-discussed, especially if there's new info or there's been time to think things through. - don't reply to _every_ message in a thread, summariseThis is impossible if the thread is occurring in real time; and even when it's not you need to reply to each spur individuals otherwise it leads to complete confusion. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're involved in? agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this. osm has open in the name and there is no need to block people. Everyone capable of subscribing knows also how to filter certain names. the real question is how to move forward as fast as possible and get the whole license discussion out of our mind. As several asked already let's open the vote for old accounts to dual license and get a strong vote for a license. as soon as a decision is final most of the poisonous people will leave. I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more productive. sure some will continue but then it's definitely time to think about blocking them. thanks for writing this post. I am getting tired too of these endless discussions! ___ 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:22:22AM -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're involved in? agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this. osm has open in the name and there is no need to block people. “open” does not mean there aren’t any things to discourage, prevent, and event take action against. Take copyright and database right violations for example: If people are not adhering to the licences and being unreasonable about it, OSM should be able to exercise its own rights. Blocking is very much a last resort, and I imagine that should it happen it will be rarely. To avoid any blocking, encourage people to be friendly on the lists, keep on topic, and if somebody is being rude, abusive, offensive, trolly, or even just showing their irritation, think twice before replying and fueling the fire. Everyone capable of subscribing knows also how to filter certain names. I don’t believe that, and it’s certainly easier in some clients than others. 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Am 11.08.2010 00:17, schrieb TimSC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy But where did it lead to? Random deletions in wp/de? That's not where OSM should go... Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 20:22:22 Apollinaris Schoell wrote: the real question is how to move forward as fast as possible and get the whole license discussion out of our mind. As several asked already let's open the vote for old accounts to dual license and get a strong vote for a license. as soon as a decision is final most of the poisonous people will leave. I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more productive. +1 -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more productive. sure some will continue but then it's definitely time to think about blocking them. This is the sort of post I do find offensive. I presume I'm listed as poisonous. I wrote about censorship, and this is the aim at this point, as I see it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 12 August 2010 00:26, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting more messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic. This is unacceptable. No, it's not. If someone is being really difficult, then they distract everybody. The project stalls as people squabble and become emotionally drained. It's best for the project if there are mechanisms for place to deal with that. Tim. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Post count was one metric in the video SteveC linked yesterday. I don't think using that as the sole measure of a contributor would be reasonable. That wasn’t the sole metric in the video, and neither did I think Steve suggested that it should be _the_ metric either. I can see that people may have taken it that way out of context. I don’t think it’s reasonable to solely use post count either. 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 11/08/2010 22:20, Liz wrote: I wrote about censorship, and this is the aim at this point, as I see it. +1 (touché Liz :-) ) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
You guys obviously didn't read Steve C's post at 10/08/2010 19:13. Please read the full thread before posting. Err, would that be the one where he merely said “interesting statistics” and didn’t state any conclusion? 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10 August 2010 17:19, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the mailing list(s), run the servers, evangelize, talk to the press and so on. I've successively and successfully given up those rights to very capable individuals. However this has led to a power vacuum when it comes to making some key decisions because nobody, for example and in a sense, is in charge of everything. For the most part I've enjoyed giving up control and seeing the project blossom, because it wouldn't have if I hadn't. However, things break down in a consensus-based community if you don't have a way to deal with malcontents. As background to the topic of this post, there is a nice video on how open source projects can survive poisonous people on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE It's about an hour long so I've provided a summary I made while watching it again at the bottom of this post. It's thesis is that you need to understand the problem of poisonous people, fortify your project against them, identify who they are and ultimately remove them. The talk above identifies people who are poisonous as those who appear with traits (amongst others) of obviousness that they will suck and drain your time, use silly nicknames/email addresses, are hostile, make demands and blackmail threats, make sweeping claims, refuse to acknowledge reasoned argument, make accusations of conspiracy and reopen topics continuously. One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people actually agree With that in mind, take a quick look at the recent discussions on the main mailing list link. I won't point to an individual thread or post, it's easy enough to figure out: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/thread.html Without discussing the individuals or the topics of the conversations, it is clear to me we are infected by poisonous people. This is bad because as the talk above specifies in the 'comprehension of the problem' section, such people distract, drain, paralyze, slow cause needless infighting and destroy the attention and focus of a community. I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM are feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or resign. These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain things and run our working groups. There is a tipping point between which our working groups and individuals have the time and patience to deal with poisonous people and the work they cherish doing, which are the things that make OSM work every day. The discussions have spilled over now from poisonous people merely making life difficult on the mailing list, to paralyzing the project and even systematically corrupting the data we serve out using bots. This is not to say there are not good points in the discussion, good points being dealt with by the License Working Group or others either in meetings or on the mailing lists, but these are being buried by poisonous people on the mailing list and elsewhere. Personal communication from multiple people, public discussion, phone calls and more have been tried without effect. This destroys consensus-baesd community. So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, creating dissent out of nothing and even purposefully breaking our data. And we don't have a clear process to deal with all the factors. The Data Working Group is one piece of the puzzle, but is not responsible for curtailing the mailing list going in infinite circles. Worse - it's giving the project a bad air to outsiders, both newbies and those outside the project. It's stopping people from becoming more involved. Thus we need some kind of process for calling timeout on people in the project, blocking them for a limited time. This could range from electing individual mailing list admins with a remit of when to shut down discussions (much like an IRC chat admin(s)), to more clear and actioned policies on list etiquette (like forcibly keeping legal discussion to the legal list), to an ejection committee to me just appointing myself benevolent dictator and blocking people for a limited time out cooling off period based on advice from the community (a worst case
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote: [ ... ] I fully support what you have said. From the ubuntu community, their code of conduct works well http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct as it provides guidelines that can be adhered to, or conversely used to put those who damage the community on a timeout. It's worked well on a few occasions, and I think an OpenStreetMap version of the code of conduct that has to be signed up to would be beneficial. Thank you Steve (s), Steve Brown, The Ubuntu code of conduct refers, in footnote 2 to two additional bodies. Can you summarize the details and involvement of Technical Review Board and the Community Council in code of conduct issues in the Ubuntu Community? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
I suggested a Code of Conduct, and have been working with OSM US for us to adopt one. We've written a draft and were waiting for the annual meeting and the next board to take it up I'd like to see the OSMF adopt something similar. A moderation policy without a code of conduct is too potentially fraught with danger. - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Hey So while I am by no means! an expert in the workings of the ubuntu community, I can summarise as follows from http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/governance: The Community Council is responsible for the creation of sub-groups and teams (such as the local chapters and development teams) and helps make sure they are run in accordance with the code of conduct. It also is responsible for creation of the code of conduct and management of it, including ensuring that members follow its guidelines. It helps sort out disagreements and has a 2 weekly IRC meeting It publishes meeting agendas, which can be added to by anyone, and minutes. See https://launchpad.net/~communitycouncil/+members and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda and https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil The Technical Council in my opinion is currently unneeded by OSM, but in the same way I summarise: It selects technologies to use in Ubuntu, from the kernel to GCC and X server systems. Steve On 10 August 2010 17:47, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote: [ ... ] I fully support what you have said. From the ubuntu community, their code of conduct works well http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct as it provides guidelines that can be adhered to, or conversely used to put those who damage the community on a timeout. It's worked well on a few occasions, and I think an OpenStreetMap version of the code of conduct that has to be signed up to would be beneficial. Thank you Steve (s), Steve Brown, The Ubuntu code of conduct refers, in footnote 2 to two additional bodies. Can you summarize the details and involvement of Technical Review Board and the Community Council in code of conduct issues in the Ubuntu Community? ___ 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
El día Tuesday 10 August 2010 18:19:30, SteveC dijo: So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, I, for one, agree. These flame wars only waste our time. Our as in all of us. It leads nowhere. What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're involved in? This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think blocking is the solution. OSM has always been, and will be, a do-ocracy, so let's let facts and lines of code speak louder than words or blocks. Let the OSMF and LWG move forward. If you don't like how the OSMF and LWG works, suck it up and step up for OSMF board elections next year. Yours, -- Iván Sánchez Ortega i...@sanchezortega.es Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta compleja. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
SteveC-2 wrote: One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people actually agree While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat. I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a poisonous person for agreeing with them. It's pretty clear that anyone who won't agree to the new license/contributor terms is poisonous in at least one sense: their refusal is poisoning the data and making it necessary to cut out anything they've touched. Or perhaps they simply have weak immune systems, and the license change process is the poison that kills their contributions. Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5393917.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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Hi all, I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM are feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or resign. These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain things and run our working groups. I'm not sure if I (still) qualify for key people as I have woefully little time to maintain the osmarender stylesheets. Mobilemap and Tagstat, two other OSM-based projects by me, also suffer from that. But I'm certainly at a point where I'm close to stop spending time as a mapper and as a coder on OSM, because for every minute I spend on fun stuff I have to spend five minutes deleting stupid emails and discussing things over and over again. So in short: +1 from me for a code of conduct and stronger measures against trolls eating up our time. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10/08/2010 17:59, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous. I agree. Personally I think Steve C is one of the rudest, most vitriolic voices on the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of I don't like you because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime example. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Hi, While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat. I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a poisonous person for agreeing with them. There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia. Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which? Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: SteveC-2 wrote: One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people actually agree While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat. I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a poisonous person for agreeing with them. It's pretty clear that anyone who won't agree to the new license/contributor terms is poisonous in at least one sense: their refusal is poisoning the data and making it necessary to cut out anything they've touched. Or perhaps they simply have weak immune systems, and the license change process is the poison that kills their contributions. Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous. That makes you at least partially slightly poisonous as I'm sure you're aware :-) Seriously though, there are limits here. There's not just people having disagreements, there's vast amounts of deliberate trolling, insane quantities of thread hijacking to make points that have been made 200 times before, and a good dollop of pissing off just about anybody who is silly enough to subscribe to osm-talk these days. Most of us have just left it to rot, which is also a shame because that's no good for new people. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 11 August 2010 03:26, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote: There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia. Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which? At least if you are going to start your own FUD get the details correct, the estimate is 1/3-1/2 no one said anything about 80%... Secondly no one has disproved anything, unless you count speculation as proof. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Personally I think [name redacted] is one of the rudest, most vitriolic voices on the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of I don't like you because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime example. So if we could look at inappropriate behaviour in general, without naming names, should we aspire to good or better behaviour? Could we codify that? And how do we encourage the community follow the guidelines. After that the question is do we want guidelines to be encouraged, or enforced. Some projects like Ubuntu seem to think that encouragement isn't always enough. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Hi, There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia. Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which? At least if you are going to start your own FUD get the details correct, the estimate is 1/3-1/2 no one said anything about 80%... No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be heard. Secondly no one has disproved anything, unless you count speculation as proof. I was not referring to the statement that the current contributor terms would lead to data loss in Australia when I said disproved FUD. But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers that have told us it might very well break that the _perfectly_ part of the statement is definitely false. If it worked _perfectly_ well noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement surfaces over and over again. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 11 August 2010 03:42, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote: No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be heard. Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate... But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers Can we get 2 of these lawyers to waste some of their time and to sue each other over this, at least that would be the end of it then one way or the other. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote: Hi, There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia. Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which? At least if you are going to start your own FUD get the details correct, the estimate is 1/3-1/2 no one said anything about 80%... No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be heard. Secondly no one has disproved anything, unless you count speculation as proof. I was not referring to the statement that the current contributor terms would lead to data loss in Australia when I said disproved FUD. But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers that have told us it might very well break that the _perfectly_ part of the statement is definitely false. If it worked _perfectly_ well noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement surfaces over and over again. ...and back on topic: One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic or inflammatory posts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Hi, No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be heard. Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate... True. But I think we both agree that it is a valid point that should be discussed and handled (hopefully in a manner to minimize data loss) in a civilized and ordered fashion. But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers Can we get 2 of these lawyers to waste some of their time and to sue each other over this, at least that would be the end of it then one way or the other. In theory a very nice idea but you would have to repeat that about 200 times to cover all relevant jurisdictions. (I'm not going to think about the problem if we need 4 cases to test all pairs of jurisdictions.) I certainly don't want to find out in 10 years when google is on one side of the case and OSM on the other side. That's why I favor a move to a license with a better chance of survival in court. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
2010/8/10 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com: ...and back on topic: One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic or inflammatory posts. But if on-topic is very much debited question? Sometimes flames indicate true disagreement between two parties. It is enough to have two passionate people from opposite sides to have it going forever. I think we need not only regulate or moderate, we need a way to address complains too. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Peter Körner wrote: Am 10.08.2010 18:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II: Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous. It's the dose that makes the poison, and when a very loud but small number of people are very poisonous, I'd welcome a slightly poisonous move from Steve to get rid of them. In a wealthy community this move would be poison but it seems, that the OSM community is somehow ill (Steve called it infected) and needs some kind of Chemotherapy. Sure, that's poison, too. Interesting statistics: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
+1 for post by SteveC It would be great if people would put more thought into what they say, use more restraint. When the list becomes mostly noise, people will stop using it. For the months of July and August, I have run some stats to see just how much people are posting: For August, so far: John Smith - 56 Anthony - 28 Frederik Ramm - 14 Richard Fairhurst - 14 80n - 13 Ben Last - 13 Ian Dees - 12 Matt Amos - 9 Liz - 8 Nathan Edgars II - 8 For July: John Smith - 133 Frederik Ramm - 47 Liz - 24 Anthony - 22 Richard Weait - 20 Ed Avis - 19 SteveC - 18 andrzej zaborowski - 17 Oliver (skobbler) - 17 Steve Bennett - 17 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk Cheers, -Katie ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote: Interesting statistics: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk What does that prove? verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10/08/2010 18:15, Dave F. wrote: On 10/08/2010 17:59, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous. I agree. Personally I think Steve C is one of the rudest, most vitriolic voices on the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of I don't like you because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime example. Dave F. His recent *personal* attack of another member here caused more disruption put more people off contributing than *any* circular arguments about the license. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 11 August 2010 03:58, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote: Sometimes flames indicate true disagreement between two parties. It is enough to have two passionate people from opposite sides to have it going forever. I think we need not only regulate or moderate, we need a way to address complains too. +1 It seems most of the problems stem from undealt with complaints that only ended up being escalated when neither party was happy with the outcome, and this thread is just yet another example of a bad situation being escalated even further... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all power I. Your hitting the nail on the head. I totally agree here. The replies are also a bit true pointing to when someone is defined as poisonous. Here comes the trick, when someone really has a different but maybe valid point then he can both be poisonous and not poisonous. This totally depends on what the guidelines are. Andy Allen is here very right IMHO. You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better then when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community. So I would love to see more guidelines. These guidelines should be discussable (within terms). But then it becomes much easier to define the targets. [bit offtopic] I don't want to go off topic but the whole discussion about the license is IMHO *also* a bit caused by the guys leading it themselves. The lack of clear reasoning and overview why what and where (humanly readable in a decent location depending on the importance of the topic; so home page of osm.org I would say) is missing. This topic is *all* about what is from *me* and none understands what a license really is. I doubt even that many don't even know why it really is needed. And now you guys are telling that my data can be removed due to others not accepting a license change? So sure this will spam the mailinglist without an end. Such a change must IMHO be informed better. (yes I read many documents/page already about this change) Note: This is not meant a bashing or blaming anyone but as how I see the current situation on the whole license change [/bit offtopic] Note: I totally not believe in an anarchy. The team pyramid can be very low and low level but there must be a lead IMHO. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10 August 2010 19:25, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote: Interesting statistics: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk What does that prove? verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption. +1 I don't find John/Frederik/Anthony/etc. to be in the slightest bit poisonous. If you are not interested in what they have to say then don't read their postings. It is the lack of finality with the license change that is the problem. Random people have posted that everything is decided and the horse has bolted as far as changes go. If that is the case the lets have that confirmed and clarify once and for all whether data sources such as the OS/Nearmap/etc. are compatible with the new license and terms. Then we can all decide if we stick with osm or not. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote: You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better then when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community. What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined! TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
TimSC I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is not about wrong or right but about being clear what the intended goals are and why. 2010/8/10 TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote: You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better then when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community. What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined! TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On 10/08/2010 20:57, Kevin Peat wrote: On 10 August 2010 19:25, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote: Interesting statistics: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk What does that prove? verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption. +1 I don't find John/Frederik/Anthony/etc. to be in the slightest bit poisonous. If you are not interested in what they have to say then don't read their postings. Exactly. I could tell how the recent thread was going to go from the outset knew it would be treading over old ground. However I would never think I had the arrogant right to tell them to stop or they'll be banned. I don't understand why many people here have the inability to *not* read a thread. On the point of the license I'm not sure what is the correct way to go, but it does seem there's far, far too many 'what if's' on all sides of the argument. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Hey I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page - would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and abide to this code? If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page Thanks Steve On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen f.heinen...@gmail.com wrote: TimSC I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is not about wrong or right but about being clear what the intended goals are and why. 2010/8/10 TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote: You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better then when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community. What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined! TimSC ___ 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Forgot the link. http://openetherpad.org/h2MuQYeCRP On 10 August 2010 21:29, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote: Hey I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page - would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and abide to this code? If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page Thanks Steve On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen f.heinen...@gmail.com wrote: TimSC I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is not about wrong or right but about being clear what the intended goals are and why. 2010/8/10 TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote: You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better then when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community. What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined! TimSC ___ 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:26PM +0100, steve brown wrote: I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page - would people suggest any changes? I would include the wiki in last section, and move the licence text to the bottom. And more importantly, to all people who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and abide to this code? I’ve only just read the thread, but it looks pretty good to me so far. If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page Done so :) 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
thanks steve Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful. On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:29 PM, steve brown wrote: Forgot the link. http://openetherpad.org/h2MuQYeCRP On 10 August 2010 21:29, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote: Hey I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page - would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and abide to this code? If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page Thanks Steve On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen f.heinen...@gmail.com wrote: TimSC I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is not about wrong or right but about being clear what the intended goals are and why. 2010/8/10 TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote: You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better then when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community. What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined! TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful. I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it. The topic of the list should be there already. :) 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Patrick Kilian wrote: But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers that have told us it might very well break that the perfectly part of the statement is definitely false. If it worked perfectly well noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement surfaces over and over again. The Fear Uncertainty Doubt exists equally in the new. Quote: If it actually works has to be tested in court. It's new, ODbL hasn't been tested in court. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Simon Ward wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful. I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it. The topic of the list should be there already. :) Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list Steve stevecoast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote: One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic or inflammatory posts. 'Poison' is opinion. I regard these efforts as attempted censorship take this back to legal-talk where it belongs don't reply to poisonous posts Discussion needs to be free and widespread. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote: Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list Fine Talk= talk and when you get plenty you are upset? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too […] I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it. The topic of the list should be there already. :) Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the list”? 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote: Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per mailing list too […] I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it. The topic of the list should be there already. :) Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the list”? Could it specify where to find the guidelines? Simply saying guidelines set by the list makes it sound like it's a decision that was made by a vote of people on a mailing list. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:20:02PM -0500, Ian Dees wrote: “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the list”? Could it specify where to find the guidelines? It could, but shouldn’t become another list of mailing lists, we already have two. Simply saying guidelines set by the list makes it sound like it's a decision that was made by a vote of people on a mailing list. How about “guidelines on the list-info page for the mailing list”? I don’t know if Mailman’s list of mailing lists[1] can contain customised text, but it could link to the code of conduct. The list on the wiki[2] can certainly link to it. [1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo [2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists 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] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people
Steve, I might support a code of conduct with a limited scope, but we seem to be moving towards a broad project wide definition of values. I am rapidly cooling to the idea of more central planning being imposed on OSM. I have previously commented that OSM has not needed to impose much central decision making up to now. I particularly recommend these wikipedia policies to potential drafters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy I am beginning to agree with Liz, and others, that this whole proposal is mainly motivated by the desire to censor dissent. TimSC On 10/08/10 21:29, steve brown wrote: If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
