On 11/07/11 08:00, Steve Coast wrote:
I'm speaking strictly personally here, posting to talk@ and opengeodata.
OSM often crosses bridges in it's growth. Mostly they're technical, like
introducing color maps, rendering new things or speeding up the system. We have
a much more ugly bridge to cross in front of us.
Would you want to be part of a community which includes people explicitly
working to disrupt it, trolling it and breaking data? Would you want to be part
of a community where people are literally scared for their jobs when thinking
about helping run it?
Over the last few days there has been a bunch of discussion on talk-au which
you can read in the archives, though for your own sanity you might want to skip
it.
For the most part the posts revolve around the OSMF, the LWG and the license
process. I considered my presence there over the last few days as both a last
ditch attempt to salvage the data and more importantly the community that's
there. As RichardF pointed out, their license acceptance rate is about half
what most EU communities have achieved. I would say that the people on that
list feel disaffected with the process and their representation in it.
Despite multiple attempts at trying to have a reasonable dialog over both what
happened and what we can do about it, mostly I've been met with extreme
animosity.
Most of that comes from people either banned from the main lists, been
deleted/blocked from OSM or been moderated or who have publicly stated they're
here to disrupt the project.
I've tried to get many people involved posting there in what I thought was a
worthwhile effort, in effect to save that list. Almost everybody declined to do
so. Only RichardF braved it and was met with a predictable response. Frederik
has given up and from my reading of his email considers talk-au dead (I think
you should make that email public). I find that understandable.
I've been trying to find someone to moderate the list along the Etiquette
guidelines on the wiki. Mikel has given up, understandably, and he leads the
main moderators. We found one native Australian to moderate but they backed out
because they literally feared for their job safety, that the people who now
inhabit the list would make life with their employer difficult. Thus, they
declined to do so after initially accepting. I actually am convinced that was
the right decision and the people on that list are capable of it.
I don't think anyone I know in OSM would want to be part of a community like
that. I think it's a sad low point in what otherwise is a wonderful project to
be involved in.
Let me be more clear, *I* don't want to be part of a community that accepts
this. Who in their right mind would want to be a part of a community run by
people explicitly out to disrupt, fork and troll?
In the best traditions of open projects our ideas and code are Free. It's not
clear that our time and server resources should be. Unlike our ideas and code,
they're finite and open to abuse. Make no mistake that our time and resources
are being used explicitly to destabilize the very project which provides them.
Used by mostly anonymous or pseudonymous people who as I say have been kicked,
banned or explicitly stated they want to destabilize OSM.
This is not about censorship. If you read the lists, you'll find we've made
available repeatedly both the methods and the people to help resolve issues.
These people are free to fork the project and the data, it's all available for
download. They have their own mailing lists. Are there genuine questions about
license, it's implementation and so on? Absolutely. But level-headed discussion
is not welcome on talk-au for the most part. There are a few people who can
discuss this stuff impersonally there but it's a small part of the list.
Now - why are we at this point?
The OSMF and the working groups, the apparatus of how a chunk of this project
is set up, are unable to deal with direct threats like this, even if it's been
going on for a year or more. One of the main forks of OSM (if you can call it
main, it doesn't yet display a map) is run by an ex-board member. When you have
someone like that working together with those who've explicitly declared they
want to disrupt OSM, it's very hard for a young, open and democratic
organization to deal with. For the most part we have no idea how many of these
people are even real too, it's been suggested that a few of the pseudonyms are
in fact just one person creating them on the fly.
We simply don't have the tools for it. Until last week we had no moderation at
all, and that took many, many months (perhaps years) to set up. The board meets
too infrequently to be able to respond to people explicitly working for its
downfall, which perhaps is a little ironic. The working groups likewise I don't
think have the bandwidth as they currently operate. Generally in an otherwise
do-ocracy there is a lack of people who feel they have the authority to take on
a role like moderating. Even if they do, it's an extremely thankless task that
almost nobody will take on.
So - what do we do now?
Well to answer that I have to assume you agree with both the horrific tone on
that list and that it should not be part of the community we represent. For
that, you might be wanting references to some of the things I cite (like this
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-April/057947.html ) but I'll
allow others to do that exhaustively (Grant is usually good, hint hint).
I want to get back to mapping. I can only do that if we do something about
these people on our lists.
I don't want to contemplate ignoring the problem, which is one extreme end.
I don't want to be a part of a community that accepts this, so leaving it as-is
is not an option.
We've tried hard to find moderators and failed. If you want to volunteer and
moderate under the Etiquette guidelines, this is the first option I would
consider, but you will get a lot of flack. And a beer from me.
We can remove everyone from talk-au and start afresh. No pseudonyms, no license
talk (would have to go to legal-talk) under the new list. This would hit reset
but remove people who have legitimate concerns and those just trying to get on
with mapping.
We can block the 'main' people. Then you have to draw the line somewhere
between the good and the bad anonymous posters. I would suggest anyone who's
posted that they want to disrupt the project and anyone operating under a
pseudonym.
We can place everyone under the emergency moderation flag and clear each post
one by one, by moderator, by vote, I don't care. I can log in and do that too.
Lots of people from talk@ could join talk-au@ and make it a nice place to be
again, the way we took back legal-talk@ from the very same people.
Maybe you have a better option?
Either way, this is an ugly bridge to cross. We need to do something to make it
clear this is not how things work in OSM. We need to make the message heard
that this is not normal, this is not the reputation we want to be known by and
we won't let it be this way.
talk@ has been bad enough with the constant repetitive arguments that go
nowhere, tbh it's resulted in me just marking the entire list as read
and moving on on many occasions. I'm sure that there's genuinely useful
discussion going on, but the signal to noise ratio got to the point
where finding the useful posts was something I simply didn't have time
to do. I can only imagine how had the .au list could be.
The lists should be a useful source of information, and help but I'm
afraid some lists haven't provided a positive view of the project for
quite some time, which is a great shame because what we're producing is
a genuinely useful (and rather amazing) end product. The lists shouldn't
be a place where new contributors fear to tread.
If a reset of the lists is what it takes to get back on track, then I'm
all for it.
--
Jon Stockill
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
