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 <[email protected]> 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 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. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > (a member of the Data Working Group but writing in an entirely personal > capacity, obviously) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
