On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop participating.
The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame, in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like the people here".
It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their time.
I have no issue with discussion on the mailing list being a challenging process of refining proposals and ideas. I agree that the interests of tagging development necessitate this (although I do think analysis paralysis is very much an issue). It's just the same as any open source development, ideas are out there for all to see and criticism is expected and welcomed.
That's what I'm here for though, not multiple threads in a single day full of thinly veiled personal attacks and projection. It does make me want to unsubscribe from the mailing list and I simply intended to share my experience in support of the points Nick had made about the atmosphere driving users away.
Your final paragraph is interesting to me, it suggests that change isn't possible in the vein of "if tagging discussion isn't for you, go somewhere else". I don't believe that's quite what you intended to say, but I've slept on it now and that's actually what I'm going to do anyway. See you guys in the changesets! 😄
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:39 AM Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote:
> In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on
> this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe.
There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing
list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop
The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame,
in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other
message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like
the people here".
It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general
hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their
For example, if you have a complex idea like e.g. the "disputed
boundaries" that we discussed a while ago, you need to bring a
combination of skills to the table to succeed:
* You need the understanding and experience in OSM to create a workable
* You need clarity of thought and the ability to express your idea
clearly, even to people who are not native speakers of English (or you
might yourself not be).
* You need diplomatic or political skills to find compromise, to get
others to support your idea, and the willingness to iterate again and
* and a lot of patience!
This can be a demanding process and not everyone is cut out for it. Of
10 who attempt it, perhaps one succeeds and the others throw in the
towel and even stop participating altogether. It would be sad, and a
little disingenuous, if these people were then running around telling
everyone how shite the tagging list is just because they didn't get
their proposal through on the first attempt.
And the same happens on smaller scales of course. You could be
suggesting something and be faced with the opinions of people from the
other side of the globe, for whom what you suggest is outlandish, or of
people who live nearby but whose vision of OSM could not be more
different than your own.
I'm sure the communications can be improved in many ways, but even if
everyone were super respectful, all this would still be *hard* and
taxing and many people would leave because they just don't have the
patience that decision making in a large, international group of
volunteers with minimal authoritarianism takes. Ask anyone who's working
at the EU or the UN...
I think OSM on the whole should be welcoming for everyone, in that
everyone can find a place where they can make a useful contribution. But
I doubt that this mailing list, or any body that discusses tagging, can
ever be built in a way that everyone feels happy to contribute.
So please, if you feel your talent is better applied to other areas of
OSM, just do it - that's great. There's no need for a "sour grapes"
approach because you found that tagging discussions were not for you.
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a culture of dissent.
I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication
make a "culture of dissent"?
Can you elaborate why you think Mail as a form of communication
is different in making a compromise possible than IRC, Slack
or a Forum?
From a sociological point i would assume that people on the mailinglist
are by average 10 Years older than people on Slack or the Forum. Thats
just a matter of history of technology.
So in the end its not "Mailing lists" but age which make you believe
you have a culture of dissent?
PS: I will not participate in a Forum. It turns the responsibilities
for around. You suddenly have the obligation to POLL on threads.
Florian Lohoff [hidden email] UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
On 25.05.19 01:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Threats of violence, racist or sexist abuse would get someone kicked
> out whether or not we have codified rules or processes.
Really? That should be written down and defined. Because people _always_
argue that what they said wasn't racist/sexist/homophobic. (e.g.
"pantigate"). Hand-wavy "of course we ban X-ist abuse" just isn't good
enough. Absent a proactive declaration that bigotry isn't tolerated,
marginalized people will make the rational decision that it will be
accepted. Many social media sites _claim_ they ban abuse, but e.g. Twitter.
> tearing the idea apart in public is totally ok and if people can't
> stand that kind of (intellectual) heat then they cannot be part of
> that aspect of the project in which such ideas are debated.
NB: Subconscious biases! Which do exist and often affect marginalized
people. People can think they are being objective & giving accurate
criticism, but they might be treating a marginalized person harsher then
they would a privileged person. If you're getting to the level of
different cultural definitions of "respectful", it's hopelessly naive to
pretend subconscious biases don't exist.
> Sometimes people attack the person presenting an idea, instead of
> attacking the idea.
On the surface this sounds like a good idea. But I can't help think of
all the bigots who say "hate the sin, love the sinner" (happens a lot
with LGB issues). I'm not sure one can always separate the idea and the
person. Alas this just makes our task harder!
> Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 01:11:08 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Filter bubbles in OSM
> People have a right to be treated with respect, but that does not mean
> that we need to extend US American style courtesy to everyone because US
> Americans have the narrowest definition of what counts as respectful.
Be careful. As a citizen of the US I find your remark offensive. Yes,
some Americans believe the way you describe, but not all. I am one of
them. Please do not lump all of us together.