> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ...
Yes, of course. It's important to ask questions and assume the best, when possible. Sometimes, the insults are as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not miscommunication, it's a free-for-all, and it turns away new users. I've seen it happen in real time. > The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". This point is well-taken. I should have contextualized my points so that it was clear that I'm objecting to a particular atmosphere and want it to improve. I do believe there are fundamental problems with the mailing list format that contribute to that atmosphere. > The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened). Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still have a negative experience. This is still (in theory) a volunteer-driven effort, so that really matters. They can (and do) just leave. You can see that the main dev of the most popular editor has already given up on these lists for very similar reasons. That's why this is relevant: that's a surprisingly reasonable response, so how can we fix it? How can we interface properly and decrease alienation? Finally, while it is surely helpful when certain behavior is called out as unacceptable, and it's appreciated, it doesn't happen nearly often enough to establish a minimum sense of decorum. > Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be saying. Oh, I think "ganging up" is fine so long as it's civil. That would be something like consensus - sounds great! I may not be making my point about disagreement clear. I love disagreement: it's healthy, it's productive, there's no other way to get consensus. New users should be met with it, when appropriate. We should all have robust discussions about differing views to establish the meaning of tags. However, it's hard to see how "establish the meaning of tags" is served when there are 3, 4, 5, 6, etc absolutist, often insulting, yet also incompatible, opinions offered. That forces the visitor into this position: ignore at least N - 1 of those people and either give up or plod along hoping that those positions can be, in some way, taken back. I'm not simply talking about proposals: if you ask, "how do I tag this?" and are in that situation, you'll come away thinking that nobody knows the answer, but some people will be very annoyed if you try to do it your way. Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote: > > > > 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. > > > What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to > understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations > can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the > other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... > > Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works > both within and without OSM. People attach themselves to communities > both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the > community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and > the people in it. For example, if I talk about the town down the road > in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking > about them and think that they are somehow bad people. The initial "OSM > needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the > other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as > personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a > sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal > attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how > will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". > > The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out > of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a > bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain > the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an > argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly > childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they > are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow > intervened). > > If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe > X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not > the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful > response). Take a step back, try and understand how they could have > misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of > "Sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was ...". > It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2 > paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example. > > Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels > like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take > a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to > be saying. Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and > you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the > problem. Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill, > ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might > allow another solution to emerge. Sometimes just sitting back and > listening is the key. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
