> 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 <ajt1...@gmail.com> 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 > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
