Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Have you not noticed how your posts are becoming repetitious? If by that you mean, Thanks Steve for your insights on moderation, I think you have now clearly communicated your point of view, then, good, I'll stop. If it was just a cheap shot, then please accept my sarcastic thanks for bringing the tone of the list just that little step lower. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: You realize tightly moderate and issues of all nature are somewhat contradictory, do you? Not at all. Personal attacks, repetition, off-topic remarks, spamminess, me-tooism - none of this comes under issues of all natures. Picture the town hall meeting style that has become popular in politics. Questions on almost any topic are allowed, but it's still tightly moderated. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On 25/08/2010 07:45, Steve Bennett wrote: Not at all. Personal attacks, repetition, off-topic remarks, spamminess, me-tooism - none of this comes under issues of all natures. Picture the town hall meeting style that has become popular in politics. Questions on almost any topic are allowed, but it's still tightly moderated. Have you not noticed how your posts are becoming repetitious? Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:21, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they? No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of opinions is unhelpful. Pfff... Ok, welcome to Tropico island... If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... If anything, I would do the opposite: tightly moderate Talk as a community forum where issues of all nature can be discussed, if done You realize tightly moderate and issues of all nature are somewhat contradictory, do you? so constructively and succinctly. Individual specialist lists could be left unmoderated. Since the numbers of subscribers are lower, they can form and enforce their own standards more easily. Btw, once more, this notion of those who don't want the spam don't have to read it is just plain wrong. The spam overwhelms the valuable discussion, meaning everyone suffers. It's not a question of if you don't like the rain, don't stand in it. Whatever, I give up... It's not like the community still has a say, anyway... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote: But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they? No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of opinions is unhelpful. If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... If anything, I would do the opposite: tightly moderate Talk as a community forum where issues of all nature can be discussed, if done so constructively and succinctly. Individual specialist lists could be left unmoderated. Since the numbers of subscribers are lower, they can form and enforce their own standards more easily. Btw, once more, this notion of those who don't want the spam don't have to read it is just plain wrong. The spam overwhelms the valuable discussion, meaning everyone suffers. It's not a question of if you don't like the rain, don't stand in it. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
A well-moderated list can be a valuable forum for achieving consensus, rather than just a soapbox for every opinion to be voiced. But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they? If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... - Chris - ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... Most of the topic‐focused lists are sane. I think the point is, legal discussion is swamping the talk list, and there are already lists specifically for legal discussion and therefore better suited to the topic. I think it’s fine to see the odd legal query on talk, and maybe even a reply or two, but any lengthy discussion involving the finer details should really be referred to legal-talk, just because it’s there, and people who have looked into the finer details, including the LWG, are more likely to be paying attention to legal discussion there. 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] moderation going forward
Most of the topic‐focused lists are sane. I think the point is, legal discussion is swamping the talk list, and there are already lists specifically for legal discussion and therefore better suited to the topic. Is this moderating stuff all about the license change? If so, and I know others agree, it should certainly NOT be moderated on Talk. As I already said, my opinion is that this license stuff has moved from a legal issue to a matter of the future of OSM as we know it... As such, contributors should be able to voice their opinion to the broadest audience. Do you honestly think the Nearmap announcement should have been posted to Legal, with only a fraction of OSM'ers aware? I don't think so. - Chris - ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
Simon The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time. There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of helping the process to happen by stealth and attrition. For the change process itself to avoid criticism it has be seen to be conducted openly and democratically. 80n On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote: On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be? Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is not obvious? Then people who don't want the noise can just turn it off, while leaving a place of free speech, and topic-focused lists would be sane... Most of the topic‐focused lists are sane. I think the point is, legal discussion is swamping the talk list, and there are already lists specifically for legal discussion and therefore better suited to the topic. I think it’s fine to see the odd legal query on talk, and maybe even a reply or two, but any lengthy discussion involving the finer details should really be referred to legal-talk, just because it’s there, and people who have looked into the finer details, including the LWG, are more likely to be paying attention to legal discussion there. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJMblVDAAoJECRyzizpC9xm7ogP/1OsRwGmSpbr8U3QDhsJ1L+l vg44szfUthLSQlik/M6LFrAEqdA0pZuWJPUajJxAH9gObyI/Dy7Yzo1fLpIPdDWZ HH81hTLEgqCHidYs2vrwJDeQhDCizJYjLasjHaXcKFJxYGypRSpRBsfOGv3zygbn 79GGbwpW4Y3+3t19SH17OhtGeU1XslBXXcSQeJv/gD6sB0gNgETIMTN2kGLDDNv1 4NAywMk4eddiNNJkUIiesIgdNLExq9Cjo+wiJCmWaMsRZ8NX0hQO+2h1PUdZv0Dy Ka6XMYoJV3Tr+9OezYTfSXlUK2z1PK0KC67aZ8oVT4GZh2ZJH3hGe4uWzz0uUvS1 csejNf8LH7IlyZt7toxtISToROIosQBvu6ANJvfMPvXdWJTr8y19k07vp5Xgfzf0 AG1GQMHnRAbn4SI2AGaLGOToEyk7FsXGSLDKm+JOGI67fWSRp29f7fxxTdKHO57V YciluGXYaiBDX81EenpSqeJxMmn0pNh5xZvhnPhhr5NtMZeqr8f5XGBY0Kd1MRv3 /Qg5BZ7DwzECMkDAvWTBeCk9D+LAFmqLwfDgcAJMvDclURYi1/ufPQPlsfOpjsTL 6+VCMXxwqqaeEMFviB8pbIG2OY8N20HiuY4OhlLyKzj+qFkENUKl/E8eFOacwfLJ 8ihi7P9fboXNVIbouimK =XP/B -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] moderation going forward
Am 20.08.2010 12:36, schrieb Chris Browet: Do you honestly think the Nearmap announcement should have been posted to Legal, with only a fraction of OSM'ers aware? I don't think so. Not the announcement but the discussion, I think. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:36:18PM +0200, Chris Browet wrote: Is this moderating stuff all about the license change? No, that’s just the current example. If so, and I know others agree, it should certainly NOT be moderated on Talk. I disagree. (Although, seeing as there is call for an unmoderated talk, then maybe we should have a moderated talk list _and_ an unmoderated talk list and let the community decide which they want to join.) As I already said, my opinion is that this license stuff has moved from a legal issue to a matter of the future of OSM as we know it... As such, contributors should be able to voice their opinion to the broadest audience. Do you honestly think the Nearmap announcement should have been posted to Legal, with only a fraction of OSM'ers aware? I don't think so. What’s wrong with bringing up the issue on legal-talk, and then posting a pointer to talk saying something like “This issue is being discussed on legal-talk, please follow the discussion there.”? (Trouble is, if everyone does that because they think their issue is super important and everyone else should know about it we still get much of legal-talk on talk.) Somebody suggested digested summaries of discussions on the lists. I think this is a good idea, but it needs people dedicated to it. I think kerneltrap (Linux Kernel Mailing List summaries) is still going, but others such as Kernel Traffic (also LKML) and Debian Weekly News (also from sources other than mailing lists, but did cover prevalent mailing list topics) fizzled out due to lack of people willing to update them. If people truly want to get their issues known to wider audiences, then maybe they should consider supporting such an effort. 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] moderation going forward
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:02PM +0100, 80n wrote: The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time. There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of helping the process to happen by stealth and attrition. I was one who complained (at least about the Contributor Terms, I was quite aware of the ODbL)… Anyhow, let me quote from my own mail: I think it’s fine to see the odd legal query on talk, and maybe even a reply or two, but any lengthy discussion involving the finer details should really be referred to legal-talk, just because it’s there, and people who have looked into the finer details, including the LWG, are more likely to be paying attention to legal discussion there. I don’t think it should be completely removed, just that any discussion more than a reply or two should be referred to the relevant list. As I also said in a later post, what’s wrong with bringing it to the attention of talk list members, and referring discussion to the more relevant list? Anybody can join legal-talk, just like talk, and anybody can view the archives. 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] moderation going forward
This thread should be moved to legal. I saw the words ODbL and Contributor Terms :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: We haven't had any problems before the controversy over licences, and I expect that once these troubles are resolved one way or another, there won't be further eruptions. So I'd suggest not setting up any elaborate moderation mechanism until it is proved to be necessary. The recent discussions on talk are symptomatic of a problem with the governance of the project, not a problem with the governance of the talk mailing list. I hope that the new OSMF board will be asking themselves, at tonight's board meeting, some very important questions about how the whole license change process is being conducted and what their role really is in supporting OpenStreetMap. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote: We haven't had any problems before the controversy over licences, and I expect that once these troubles are resolved one way or another, there won't be further eruptions. So I'd suggest not setting up any elaborate moderation mechanism until it is proved to be necessary. I missed this comment. I strongly disagree with we haven't had any problems before. Most of the lists have a pretty low signal-to-noise ratio, with many spammy comments, endless repetition of the same points, rampant +1 and -1, off-topic discussion. A well-moderated list can be a valuable forum for achieving consensus, rather than just a soapbox for every opinion to be voiced. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
We haven't had any problems before the controversy over licences, and I expect that once these troubles are resolved one way or another, there won't be further eruptions. So I'd suggest not setting up any elaborate moderation mechanism until it is proved to be necessary. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] moderation going forward
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:34 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: The list has become sane again, and I've not had to use any Evil Powers. But, is this what you want going forward? My own inclination is that list moderators are elected per list for, say, a one year period. But I suspect that finding people who want to be a moderator might be hard. Thoughts? Hand pick 5-10 people you trust. Announce them. Remove anyone that there are loud objections to. Don't bother with elections, it's not important enough for the bureaucratic overhead. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
