Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 01:11:08 +0200 From: Frederik Ramm To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM [...] People have a right to be treated with respect, but that does not mean that we need to extend US American style courtesy to everyone because US Americans have the narrowest definition of what counts as respectful. [...] Be careful. As a citizen of the US I find your remark offensive. Yes, some Americans believe the way you describe, but not all. I am one of them. Please do not lump all of us together. Mark ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing > list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop > participating. > The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame, > in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other > message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like > the people here". > It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general > hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their > time. Hey Frederik, I have no issue with discussion on the mailing list being a challenging process of refining proposals and ideas. I agree that the interests of tagging development necessitate this (although I do think analysis paralysis is very much an issue). It's just the same as any open source development, ideas are out there for all to see and criticism is expected and welcomed. That's what I'm here for though, not multiple threads in a single day full of thinly veiled personal attacks and projection. It does make me want to unsubscribe from the mailing list and I simply intended to share my experience in support of the points Nick had made about the atmosphere driving users away. Your final paragraph is interesting to me, it suggests that change isn't possible in the vein of "if tagging discussion isn't for you, go somewhere else". I don't believe that's quite what you intended to say, but I've slept on it now and that's actually what I'm going to do anyway. See you guys in the changesets! On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote: > > In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on > > this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe. > > There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing > list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop > participating. > > The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame, > in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other > message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like > the people here". > > It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general > hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their > time. > > For example, if you have a complex idea like e.g. the "disputed > boundaries" that we discussed a while ago, you need to bring a > combination of skills to the table to succeed: > > * You need the understanding and experience in OSM to create a workable > proposal. > > * You need clarity of thought and the ability to express your idea > clearly, even to people who are not native speakers of English (or you > might yourself not be). > > * You need diplomatic or political skills to find compromise, to get > others to support your idea, and the willingness to iterate again and > again. > > * and a lot of patience! > > This can be a demanding process and not everyone is cut out for it. Of > 10 who attempt it, perhaps one succeeds and the others throw in the > towel and even stop participating altogether. It would be sad, and a > little disingenuous, if these people were then running around telling > everyone how shite the tagging list is just because they didn't get > their proposal through on the first attempt. > > And the same happens on smaller scales of course. You could be > suggesting something and be faced with the opinions of people from the > other side of the globe, for whom what you suggest is outlandish, or of > people who live nearby but whose vision of OSM could not be more > different than your own. > > I'm sure the communications can be improved in many ways, but even if > everyone were super respectful, all this would still be *hard* and > taxing and many people would leave because they just don't have the > patience that decision making in a large, international group of > volunteers with minimal authoritarianism takes. Ask anyone who's working > at the EU or the UN... > > I think OSM on the whole should be welcoming for everyone, in that > everyone can find a place where they can make a useful contribution. But > I doubt that this mailing list, or any body that discusses tagging, can > ever be built in a way that everyone feels happy to contribute. > > So please, if you feel your talent is better applied to other areas of > OSM, just do it - that's great. There's no need for a "sour grapes" > approach because you found that tagging discussions were not for you. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On 24/05/2019 23:47, Nick Bolten wrote:
Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will
still have a negative experience.
New users asking questions probably fall more within the remit of the
help site ("how do I do X") rather than this list ("how should we change
OSM's tagging to better represent X"). Before asking there I'd also
suggest a quick scan of https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask first
- although OSM's help site is far less prescriptive than StackOverflow
in terms of how to ask questions and what sorts of questions are
permitted. If someone's first language isn't English and there's a
community for that language in e.g. the OSM forum I'd suggest asking
there instead.
You say "They will still have a negative experience" as if it's
guaranteed, but without further evidence about what was actually said
and how the experience was perceived to be negative it's difficult to
comment further. I'm sure that it is possible to have a negative
experience here* (and in any other OSM or non-OSM forum), but simply
stating that "they will still have a negative experience" doesn't allow
anyone to understand what went wrong and how everyone can do better next
time.
Best Regards,
Andy
*to be honest, the list volume can be a bit much (regardless of
content). I make more use of "move messages matching X to a folder
unread" and "mark entire thread as read" for this list than any other
OSM one.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
Hi, On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote: > In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on > this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe. There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop participating. The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame, in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like the people here". It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their time. For example, if you have a complex idea like e.g. the "disputed boundaries" that we discussed a while ago, you need to bring a combination of skills to the table to succeed: * You need the understanding and experience in OSM to create a workable proposal. * You need clarity of thought and the ability to express your idea clearly, even to people who are not native speakers of English (or you might yourself not be). * You need diplomatic or political skills to find compromise, to get others to support your idea, and the willingness to iterate again and again. * and a lot of patience! This can be a demanding process and not everyone is cut out for it. Of 10 who attempt it, perhaps one succeeds and the others throw in the towel and even stop participating altogether. It would be sad, and a little disingenuous, if these people were then running around telling everyone how shite the tagging list is just because they didn't get their proposal through on the first attempt. And the same happens on smaller scales of course. You could be suggesting something and be faced with the opinions of people from the other side of the globe, for whom what you suggest is outlandish, or of people who live nearby but whose vision of OSM could not be more different than your own. I'm sure the communications can be improved in many ways, but even if everyone were super respectful, all this would still be *hard* and taxing and many people would leave because they just don't have the patience that decision making in a large, international group of volunteers with minimal authoritarianism takes. Ask anyone who's working at the EU or the UN... I think OSM on the whole should be welcoming for everyone, in that everyone can find a place where they can make a useful contribution. But I doubt that this mailing list, or any body that discusses tagging, can ever be built in a way that everyone feels happy to contribute. So please, if you feel your talent is better applied to other areas of OSM, just do it - that's great. There's no need for a "sour grapes" approach because you found that tagging discussions were not for you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > > What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries > to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations > can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on > the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... > > Yes, of course. It's important to ask questions and assume the best, when > possible. > > Sometimes, the insults are as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not > miscommunication, it's a free-for-all, and it turns away new users. I've > seen it happen in real time. > > > The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" > message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not > intended as > personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt > a sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct > personal attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, > how will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". > > This point is well-taken. I should have contextualized my points so that > it was clear that I'm objecting to a particular atmosphere and want it to > improve. I do believe there are fundamental problems with the mailing list > format that contribute to that atmosphere. > > > The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out > of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a > bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the > clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument > with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, > you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is > silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened). > > Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still > have a negative experience. This is still (in theory) a volunteer-driven > effort, so that really matters. They can (and do) just leave. You can see > that the main dev of the most popular editor has already given up on these > lists for very similar reasons. That's why this is relevant: that's a > surprisingly reasonable response, so how can we fix it? How can we > interface properly and decrease alienation? > > Finally, while it is surely helpful when certain behavior is called out as > unacceptable, and it's appreciated, it doesn't happen nearly often enough > to establish a minimum sense of decorum. > > > Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels > like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take > a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be > saying. > > Oh, I think "ganging up" is fine so long as it's civil. That would be > something like consensus - sounds great! > > I may not be making my point about disagreement clear. I love > disagreement: it's healthy, it's productive, there's no other way to get > consensus. New users should be met with it, when appropriate. We should all > have robust discussions about differing views to establish the meaning of > tags. > > However, it's hard to see how "establish the meaning of tags" is served > when there are 3, 4, 5, 6, etc absolutist, often insulting, yet also > incompatible, opinions offered. That forces the visitor into this position: > ignore at least N - 1 of those people and either give up or plod along > hoping that those positions can be, in some way, taken back. I'm not simply > talking about proposals: if you ask, "how do I tag this?" and are in that > situation, you'll come away thinking that nobody knows the answer, but some > people will be very annoyed if you try to do it your way. > > Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if > disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see > that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > >> On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote: >> > >> > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an >> > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal >> > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own. >> > >> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to >> understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations >> can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the >> other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... >> >> Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works >> both within and without OSM. People attach themselves to communities >> both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the >> community is based to
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
Hi, On 25.05.19 00:11, Florian Lohoff wrote: > Its just a matter of > defining whom to exclude not if. True. My son attends a school that favours being inclusive, and this means that there's one student in the class who has a form of autism that lets him often loudly protest against assignments, throw stuff on the ground and leave the room in a huff. You'll find quite a few parents at this school saying "well I'm all for inclusion but this is starting to impact my child's education negatively..." It's easy to rattle off a catalogue of behaviours we will all agree on that they have no place here. Threats of violence, racist or sexist abuse would get someone kicked out whether or not we have codified rules or processes. These are extremely rare, though, and are certainly not the problem people refer to when they say that the lists are not welcoming. The problems that people often cite are softer in nature: The "culture" was not "welcoming", they felt "attacked" or not treated respectfully enough. These are much, much harder to codify, and I know quite a few proponents of strict code-of-conduct rules who are against any soft rules like that. People have a right to be treated with respect, but that does not mean that we need to extend US American style courtesy to everyone because US Americans have the narrowest definition of what counts as respectful. We want and need passionate debate about issues in this grassroots project; if someone offers a very bad idea, then nobody benefits if people say "this is a GREAT idea, I'd just like to suggest a small change" - tearing the idea apart in public is totally ok and if people can't stand that kind of (intellectual) heat then they cannot be part of that aspect of the project in which such ideas are debated. There ought to be a safe space for people, but there cannot be a safe space in which bad ideas are allowed to live just because nobody dares to call them out. Sometimes people attack the person presenting an idea, instead of attacking the idea. This is something that we can work on and improve. On the other hand, sometimes people feel attacked or "not welcomed" when you tell them that their idea is not a good one, or that they have made a mistake. If in this situation people are allowed to invoke some rule that demands everyone be welcoming all the time, then we can probably stop discussing anything right away, because the person with the thinnest skin will be the last one left standing. This, however, is leading us far off topic. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... Yes, of course. It's important to ask questions and assume the best, when possible. Sometimes, the insults are as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not miscommunication, it's a free-for-all, and it turns away new users. I've seen it happen in real time. > The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". This point is well-taken. I should have contextualized my points so that it was clear that I'm objecting to a particular atmosphere and want it to improve. I do believe there are fundamental problems with the mailing list format that contribute to that atmosphere. > The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened). Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still have a negative experience. This is still (in theory) a volunteer-driven effort, so that really matters. They can (and do) just leave. You can see that the main dev of the most popular editor has already given up on these lists for very similar reasons. That's why this is relevant: that's a surprisingly reasonable response, so how can we fix it? How can we interface properly and decrease alienation? Finally, while it is surely helpful when certain behavior is called out as unacceptable, and it's appreciated, it doesn't happen nearly often enough to establish a minimum sense of decorum. > Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be saying. Oh, I think "ganging up" is fine so long as it's civil. That would be something like consensus - sounds great! I may not be making my point about disagreement clear. I love disagreement: it's healthy, it's productive, there's no other way to get consensus. New users should be met with it, when appropriate. We should all have robust discussions about differing views to establish the meaning of tags. However, it's hard to see how "establish the meaning of tags" is served when there are 3, 4, 5, 6, etc absolutist, often insulting, yet also incompatible, opinions offered. That forces the visitor into this position: ignore at least N - 1 of those people and either give up or plod along hoping that those positions can be, in some way, taken back. I'm not simply talking about proposals: if you ask, "how do I tag this?" and are in that situation, you'll come away thinking that nobody knows the answer, but some people will be very annoyed if you try to do it your way. Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote: > > > > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an > > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal > > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own. > > > What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to > understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations > can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the > other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... > > Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works > both within and without OSM. People attach themselves to communities > both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the > community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and > the people in it. For example, if I talk about the town down the road > in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking > about them and think that they are somehow bad people. The initial "OSM > needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote: I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own. What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works both within and without OSM. People attach themselves to communities both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and the people in it. For example, if I talk about the town down the road in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking about them and think that they are somehow bad people. The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened). If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful response). Take a step back, try and understand how they could have misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of "Sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was ...". It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2 paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example. Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be saying. Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the problem. Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill, ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might allow another solution to emerge. Sometimes just sitting back and listening is the key. Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:42:18AM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote: > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive > community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so > easily? It hasn't happened on its own. I havent seen personal harassment so far and other projects i am involved in got much less attractive when given a "code of conduct". Often the CoC this is abused turning people away beeing loud or direct in their tone. CoC by itself is neither a guarantee nor a method to create an inclusive community. Its just a matter of defining whom to exclude not if. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > Have you tried running to the teacher? That's a third option you could > try. Tell the teacher that > poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is > bad and that's > why Paul is a poopy-head. > > Now you can call me condescending. Again. As long as you don't mention > me by name. > > Can we please get back to adult conversation. I would suggest restarting the discussion in a new thread with a commitment from participants to civilized constructive comments and proposals. Thanks, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:01, Nick Bolten wrote: > How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like > this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. > > Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community? > > Should it be called out, creating a long-running petty thread? > > I've tried both. Maybe there's a third option? > Have you tried running to the teacher? That's a third option you could try. Tell the teacher that poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is bad and that's why Paul is a poopy-head. Now you can call me condescending. Again. As long as you don't mention me by name. SMFH -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community? Should it be called out, creating a long-running petty thread? I've tried both. Maybe there's a third option? On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:54 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten wrote: > >> It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to >> independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for >> those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions. >> > > A toxic environment, eh? Doesn't that imply that some of those posting > here are toxic? Wouldn't > accusing people of being toxic itself be toxic behaviour? Oh, only if you > mention them by name, > eh? > > In any case, I didn't notice any toxicity about this environment until you > showed up. Strange, that. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten wrote: > It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to > independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for > those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions. > A toxic environment, eh? Doesn't that imply that some of those posting here are toxic? Wouldn't accusing people of being toxic itself be toxic behaviour? Oh, only if you mention them by name, eh? In any case, I didn't notice any toxicity about this environment until you showed up. Strange, that. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
> I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in some sense) people like you. They're people that you know personally well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. Of course. Though the people that have self-selected outside of this mailing list are on an international scope and often have no more obviously in common than being an OSM enthusiast with the time (and resources) to attend an event. > OSM is a global project. By that very definition there will be people who don't share your views, approach or language, yet it the map belongs to everyone, and sometimes we have to find ways to talk to each other because we need to talk about stuff that applies to everyone. That's exactly right, and one reason why toxicity is incredibly counterproductive: there's enough challenges in communicating on a global scale, already. I don't believe any of the points I've made wouldn't apply to an international audience. Nobody is incapable of not going after someone else personally. The lack of decorum is not a language problem. I speak one of the non-English languages that is often used to excuse this behavior. I've visited countries where it is spoken, I've visited other communities in that language. It's not in any way intrinsic to that language or associated cultures. > The problem with "an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists ... that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct" is that it sounds like you want to set rules about who is allowed to participate in those discussions and who is not, and that people that would be allowed to participate are (in some sense) "people like you". I'm not sure why anyone assumes this is the case. I want no part in moderation - if anything, that's where I should be criticized! Not even going to take on mod duties, what's he complaining about? I'm suggesting that there be a community-oriented code of conduct. I say this because self-regulation is failing - would if I could not have to suggest it. As an example, the SOTM has one: https://2019.stateofthemap.org/codeofconduct/. Its purpose is to avoid harassment and promote an inclusive community, though other conferences tend to include more language that extends beyond harassment. The idea is: maybe the primary place people are supposed to go for feedback on tags, sometimes their first experience with the community, shouldn't be alienating. I want more people mapping OSM and I want to tell them to use this resource. I'm conflicted on that recommendation. > To be clear, this isn't just about iD, or mailing lists, or Slack, or USA mappers vs German mappers. I've seen a few examples around the world recently with DWG hat on where a bunch of people decided to do X, but some other people somehow didn't know about it and complained. > The first bunch of people could perhaps have tried to make things a bit more public, but they probably didn't realise they hadn't done this as they were using the communications channel that "everyone" uses (in a few specific examples I can think of that was Telegram, Slack, or a subforum at forum.osm.org). Exactly! There are many places to go and none appear to be any more official than the next - a side-effect of a distributed community with no central, open, discoverable forum. Perhaps that situation could've been avoided with better community discussion tools and UX on openstreetmap.org. It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions. > The second bunch of people complain that something happened that they weren't expecting and that it was wrong/undiscussed/some other sort of problem. Everyone's acting in good faith - they're trying to do the right thing but somehow communication doesn't quite occur. What everyone (including me) needs to try and do is to say "OK, that didn't quite work; how do we try and make it work better next time?" I'm sure that the answer to that last question isn't choosing who can and who can't be part of the discussion. I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:26 AM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" > thread: > > OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of > > these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have > > a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X > > more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list > > (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could > > not be more stark ... > > Nick, > > I
Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
Not sure about the context of this message but Andy's reasoning seems sound. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:26 PM Andy Townsend wrote: > On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" > thread: > > OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of > > these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have > > a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X > > more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list > > (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could > > not be more stark ... > > Nick, > > I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in > some sense) people like you. They're people that you know personally > well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a > geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. > These people are essentially self-selecting - they will interact the > same way as you, and are probably more likely to agree with you. > > OSM is a global project. By that very definition there will be people > who don't share your views, approach or language, yet it the map belongs > to everyone, and sometimes we have to find ways to talk to each other > because we need to talk about stuff that applies to everyone. Sometimes > people talk in ways that don't (to borrow Simon's phrase) "wrap any > criticism in multiple layers of cotton wool". This list has an owner, > and although some list owners are more active than others OSM mailing > lists have certainly warned people in the past when people have e.g. > made unsolicited allegations. > > The problem with "an alternative for community tagging discussions > outside of these mailing lists ... that have a reasonable, > community-oriented code of conduct" is that it sounds like you want to > set rules about who is allowed to participate in those discussions and > who is not, and that people that would be allowed to participate are (in > some sense) "people like you". > > I'd actually like to make it easier rather than harder for people to > take part in international discussions - features on the web site such > as changeset discussion comments (and even indirectly the report > buttons) are a way of stimulating conversation between people who are > united only in the fact that they're editing the same map. When > communicating with people on behalf of the DWG (and when suggesting how > people communicate with others) I've always suggested trying to send > something in the recipient's own language. Even if it's a machine > translation and a bit rubbish they will hopefully understand that "some > other human being is trying to communicate with me". > > Various OSM communities have tried different communication mechanisms. > Lots of OSM people in the US love Slack, whereas I suspect that a number > of German OSMers would run a mile if asked to use it (a bit too > corporate). The subset of OSMers in the UK that are part of the "OS UK > chapter" are using a closed discussion board called "Loomio", but as a > volume communications mechanism it's not been a success - there's much > less traffic there than https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > . OSM's a distributed project, and different communities will pick what > works for them, but there still needs to be an open way to communicate > internationally - you shouldn't have to pass a test that you can "wrap > messages in cotton wool" before joining. > > It's perfectly reasonable for a group designing something that's part of > OSM to need a space away from the hubbub to discuss things; that's why > github issues get closed and locked. It's even OK (if arguably somewhat > ill-advised) to write what was written in > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649 > which among various other inflammatory stuff seems to say "it doesn't > matter how right you are and how wrong we are; we'll do it anyway"; > what's not OK is to expect people not to call the author out on that and > it's not OK to try and shut down the wider discussion (e.g. on this > mailing list). > > To be clear, this isn't just about iD, or mailing lists, or Slack, or > USA mappers vs German mappers. I've seen a few examples around the > world recently with a DWG hat on where a bunch of people decided to do > X, but some other people somehow didn't know about it and complained. > The first bunch of people could perhaps have tried to make things a bit > more public, but they probably didn't realise they hadn't done this as > they were using the communications channel that "everyone" uses (in a > few specific examples I can think of that was Telegram, Slack, or a > subforum at forum.osm.org). The second bunch of people complain that > something happened that they weren't expecting and that it was > wrong/undiscussed/some other sort of problem. Everyone's acting in good > faith - they're trying to do the right thing
