> I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints
(including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate
with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get
their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that disagreed
with what ever they were proposing).
I've "gotten my way" in threads that had toxic elements before, so no, I
won't find that.
> If you are addressing a very diverse group, disagreement is the name of
the game.
Disagreement isn't one of the problems I listed. The closest is this:
receiving absolutely incompatible opinions that are presented as
authoritative and certain. They are a serious challenge to the usefulness
of this list. It requires you to disregard several positions - the claims
aren't really up for debate, as presented - and given the nonexistent
standards of decorum, that often goes poorly.
> PS: I think you owe us proof of this rather extraordinary claim > - You
will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
I strongly prefer to not go after individuals (which is what that would
turn into), as that doesn't serve any purpose but division and pettiness.
If you ask privately I'd be happy to send you examples.
On Fri, May 24, 2019, 1:56 AM Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
>
> Am 24.05.2019 um 00:59 schrieb Nick Bolten:
>
> > The talk ML might be a better spot for this, this topic has already
> strayed quite far from the original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a
> more positive prospect instead of with a rant ;-)
>
> So far as I can tell, the topic on this mailing list (as it often is) is
> to gripe about how the iD editor isn't listening to this mailing list (and
> sometimes on Github issues). I've listed some reasons as to why someone
> might not listen to this mailing list. Reasons that I've heard echoed many
> times in various venues...
>
> I think if you investigate, you will find that invariably such complaints
> (including the predictably, invariably going to be used,"toxic"), originate
> with people that didn't get their way, or associates of them ("didn't get
> their way" as in: there was a substantial body of opinions that disagreed
> with what ever they were proposing).
>
> If you are addressing a very diverse group, disagreement is the name of
> the game. People that can't with live that will tend to gyrate towards more
> controlled and selective environments, particularly if they can control the
> discourse as they can do for example on a github repo, or a slack channel.
> Not to mention that on any of the larger more diverse forums, that is any
> of the international, and topical mailing lists, forums, IRC channels, you
> will have a large selection of different discussion cultures, and will
> experience everything from people directly calling a spade a spade, to
> criticism being packaged in multiple layers of cotton wool.
>
> Simon
>
> PS: I think you owe us proof of this rather extraordinary claim > - You
> will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 3:05 PM Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote:
>
>> These are some valid points, and I also have some input to that, but are
>> you sure you want to discuss this on the tagging ML? The talk ML might be a
>> better spot for this, this topic has already strayed quite far from the
>> original topic. (And maybe start the topic on a more positive prospect
>> instead of with a rant ;-)
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> On 23/05/2019 21:58, Nick Bolten wrote:
>> >> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both
>> sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used
>> was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).
>> >
>> > 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:
>> >
>> > # My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
>> > - Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to
>> donate their time to help others via the map.
>> > - Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of
>> view and usually come around to a compromise.
>> > - There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
>> > - Objections are qualified and polite.
>> > - 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.
>> >
>> > # My experience with this mailing list:
>> > - Quick to exasperate.
>> > - You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
>> > - You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
>> > - The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens
>> of thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
>> > - The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible
>> opinions from those that do respond.
>> > - Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions
>> shared here are in any way representative of the community, given that so
>> few discover + participate in it?
>> > - Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters
>> and/or specialized search queries.
>> > - Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add
>> data to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of
>> collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).
>> >
>> > Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good
>> way to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?
>> >
>> > When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were
>> offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this
>> mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining
>> existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import.
>> The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even
>> really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting
>> accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students
>> were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting
>> to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and
>> would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the
>> project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with
>> local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even
>> know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.
>> >
>> > To boot, there are technical problems solved by virtually every other
>> messaging system:
>> > - Difficult to discover.
>> > - Virtually impossible for new users to join recent discussions - they
>> need to have subscribed to the list first.
>> > - Discovering old discussions is difficult, requires some nerdy prowess.
>> > - Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email.
>> No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw
>> this. Completely unacceptable.
>> >
>> > Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real
>> forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging
>> discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or
>> something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual moderators
>> and code of conduct. The current mode of communication is systematically
>> flawed.
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny <
>> matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > 23 May 2019, 18:32 by o...@westnordost.de <mailto:o...@westnordost.de
>> >:
>> >
>> > reverse this development.
>> >
>> > Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both
>> sides and it
>> > would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was
>> frankly stupid
>> > what I realized after sending the message).
>> >
>> > I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well,
>> I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
>> > it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not
>> interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration
>> and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would
>> he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping
>> (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated
>> (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most
>> importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
>> >
>> > +1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in
>> doing this, with time to do that,
>> > and not already involved in a poor way
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
