These guidelines are all nice, but I have two reservations about where this discussion is headed. 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct as a response to particular cases. When there's an actual dispute on the table that might be addressed by an as yet imaginary code, we are in reactionary mode and it will be really hard to think outside that box and devise a code that will address future cases well. Also, it weakens the position of the arbitrator if all of a sudden a code is conjured up out of nothing and used to make a point in the arbitration. 2) I have zero experience with devising codes of conduct, but isn't it really hard to encode the essence of good behavior, for the U.S mappers subculture no less, in a few paragraphs? I'm not saying we can't try, but I don't see what is so specific about our case. Couldn't a case like this arise anywhere? (Again, it's hard to talk about it without knowing too many specifics.) Also, we already have a code of conduct for automated edits, which ends with: 'The data working group will investigate and act on issues which cannot be resolved through the above course of action'. If this code of conduct was going to have a similar role in the process, wouldn't we end up in the same place with it as where we are without? With the DWG having to deal with this because the code of conduct was not followed?
Again, the only way I see this going anywhere is if we can enforce such a code. For that, it needs to be much more specific (how many violations? what do all these terms mean?), and moreover I think we do need to think about leveraging the growth of contributors in the community more. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but with formalized stewardship of experienced editors in an area (Sam Iacullo hinted at this in his own thread about this), based on editing history and possibly also personal preference, combined with limited scope of action for beginners, we can build a stronger community where we won't have spend this much time and energy on a few warmongers. It's not like we have to start from scratch with all this, we already have OWL codebase for monitoring areas, and ideas[1] and code[2] for determining stewards based on edit history. But to come back to Richard Weait's original questions: Yes, I think the DWG should act on behalf of the US community here even though it seems to be a matter of conduct instead of a pure data issue. Maybe we should have an Ethics WG for these kinds of cases, but as it is, we don't, and I think the DWG is the closest thing to it that we do have. As for guidance, I say we collect a good sample of private interactions between this mapper and his 'local' victims, which should provide enough material in itself to exclude this element from our community. If we need more, Richard Welty's list here would make a good start. I would definitely add something like: 'If documented and repeated attempts at reaching a consensus have been made, and a resolution cannot be reached, a documented case may be filed with the DWG, who will rule based on the facts presented.' This should probably be followed by possible outcomes, but I don't know what those are. Martijn [1] http://de.straba.us/2011/07/17/mvp-osm-my-presentation-for-state-of-the-map-europe-2011/ [2] https://github.com/napo/mvp-osm - I have yet to try this though. Martijn On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Richard Welty <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/1/12 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> >> >> If, for example, the US community would express a clear preference for >> local mappers having their way in tagging, then a tagging bully would >> clearly and visibly operate outside of the rules of accepted behaviour, and >> all his explanations about why his tagging is correct would be moot. > > i'd like to take a positive approach to this negative topic. here are some > potential guidelines for US mappers > to consider: > > OpenStreetMap is a community. Communities work best when their members > communicate > and work towards consensus. > > The work of local mappers is to be respected. They have local knowledge of > value. > > If you disagree with the work of another mapper, please communicate with > them. Start with > polite, private communication. Do not start out by calling them out in > public. > > Do not engage in edit wars. > > Furthermore, do not threaten, either explicitly or by implication, to engage > in an edit > war to get your way. > > True consensus is when most members of a community agree. Do not yell loudly > in order > to disrupt a building consensus. Accept that sometimes you don't get your > way. > > Keep your eye on the goal. Do not let disagreements get in the way of > producing the > best map ever. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
