This list requires moderation

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

This list requires moderation

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

I've chosen a somewhat cheeky subject on purpose. I don't mean to say
that this list requires a moderator, or that people on this list are
impolite and offensive and all that stuff - on the contrary, this
mailing list is a place where discussions are generally factual and we
don't have trolls, abuse, bigotry, or any of that.

What I am calling for is moderation in the sense of restraint, or (a
definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) "observing reasonable
limits".

Discussions about tagging are important for OSM, and it is good that
they are being held here on an open mailing list. It is also good that
we are actually discussing and not just upvoting and downvoting. I don't
want to change any of that.

But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.

Things that I see too often:

* Repetition of one's own arguments. If you say something, and someone
else opposes that, simply let it stand. You have said your thing, the
other guy has said their thing, you don't need to say "but I still think
that" and then repeat everything in other words.

* Repetition of someone else's arguments in different words. All too
often we have five people essentially saying the same thing in slightly
different words. Everyone believes that the other person has got it
*almost* right but they want to add one tiny bit, or stress another
aspect, and boom, there goes a new three-page essay.

* Quick-fire responses. One person writes something, and three others
reply immediately, without having fully read or understood the other
responses, leading to a broad overlap between responses. If people were
willing to wait a little longer, maybe they could do away with their
response altogether because someone else has already said it.

* Mistaking the list for a voting platform - while it is important to
gauge what the community opinion is, if one person says something and
three others have opposed, then it is not necessary to add a fourth,
fifth, and sixth opposing voice. Three against is clear enough.

* Wanting to comment on everything - there's a few people here who seem
to see it as their responsibility to participate in every single thread.
I've been there, done that. Nowadays I still read all the threads, and I
ask myself: Is this an emergency where people will do something really
bad if I don't join the discussion and try to steer them away? If it
isn't, then I try to remain silent on that topic even if (!) I think
that people are maybe overlooking a minor detail or the discussion isn't
going exactly as I would like it.

Before you post to this mailing list, remember that every single post
uses some bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited. The more bandwidth is
wasted on unnecessary "I 99% agree but there's this one little thing
that I feel I need to write three pages about", the less bandwidth
remains for the important stuff. And a high-bandwidth mailing list
presents a higher hurdle for participation, so the more unnecessary
words we make, the fewer people will be willing and able to participate.

Before you post, ask yourself: Does what I have to say really have an
impact? Is what I am about to write something that the 100s of readers
of this list need to read?

Set yourself reasonable limits; think about how you can help us all to
save bandwidth. For example such limits could be "don't send more than
one message per day on average", or "try to make it a habit to reply to
things on the next day, rather than on the same day - unless your reply
has already been made redundant by then".

I think this mailing list is important and good work is being done here,
and I want to keep it functioning. Hence this call for "moderation", in
the sense of "observing reasonable limits". Your help is greatly
appreciated.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

SimonPoole
See
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/045873.html
given that in the mean time any notion of voluntary restraint seems to
have vanished, I'm not very optimistic about any such call for moderation.

We have individuals posting multiple 100s of messages to tagging alone
per month (not even touching on the total number of posts over all
channels), which would seem to simply be outside of any reasonable use
of the list.

Simon

Am 07.02.2021 um 13:10 schrieb Frederik Ramm:

> Hi,
>
> I've chosen a somewhat cheeky subject on purpose. I don't mean to say
> that this list requires a moderator, or that people on this list are
> impolite and offensive and all that stuff - on the contrary, this
> mailing list is a place where discussions are generally factual and we
> don't have trolls, abuse, bigotry, or any of that.
>
> What I am calling for is moderation in the sense of restraint, or (a
> definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) "observing reasonable
> limits".
>
> Discussions about tagging are important for OSM, and it is good that
> they are being held here on an open mailing list. It is also good that
> we are actually discussing and not just upvoting and downvoting. I don't
> want to change any of that.
>
> But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
> follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
> could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.
>
> Things that I see too often:
>
> * Repetition of one's own arguments. If you say something, and someone
> else opposes that, simply let it stand. You have said your thing, the
> other guy has said their thing, you don't need to say "but I still think
> that" and then repeat everything in other words.
>
> * Repetition of someone else's arguments in different words. All too
> often we have five people essentially saying the same thing in slightly
> different words. Everyone believes that the other person has got it
> *almost* right but they want to add one tiny bit, or stress another
> aspect, and boom, there goes a new three-page essay.
>
> * Quick-fire responses. One person writes something, and three others
> reply immediately, without having fully read or understood the other
> responses, leading to a broad overlap between responses. If people were
> willing to wait a little longer, maybe they could do away with their
> response altogether because someone else has already said it.
>
> * Mistaking the list for a voting platform - while it is important to
> gauge what the community opinion is, if one person says something and
> three others have opposed, then it is not necessary to add a fourth,
> fifth, and sixth opposing voice. Three against is clear enough.
>
> * Wanting to comment on everything - there's a few people here who seem
> to see it as their responsibility to participate in every single thread.
> I've been there, done that. Nowadays I still read all the threads, and I
> ask myself: Is this an emergency where people will do something really
> bad if I don't join the discussion and try to steer them away? If it
> isn't, then I try to remain silent on that topic even if (!) I think
> that people are maybe overlooking a minor detail or the discussion isn't
> going exactly as I would like it.
>
> Before you post to this mailing list, remember that every single post
> uses some bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited. The more bandwidth is
> wasted on unnecessary "I 99% agree but there's this one little thing
> that I feel I need to write three pages about", the less bandwidth
> remains for the important stuff. And a high-bandwidth mailing list
> presents a higher hurdle for participation, so the more unnecessary
> words we make, the fewer people will be willing and able to participate.
>
> Before you post, ask yourself: Does what I have to say really have an
> impact? Is what I am about to write something that the 100s of readers
> of this list need to read?
>
> Set yourself reasonable limits; think about how you can help us all to
> save bandwidth. For example such limits could be "don't send more than
> one message per day on average", or "try to make it a habit to reply to
> things on the next day, rather than on the same day - unless your reply
> has already been made redundant by then".
>
> I think this mailing list is important and good work is being done here,
> and I want to keep it functioning. Hence this call for "moderation", in
> the sense of "observing reasonable limits". Your help is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm

Hi Frederik

On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 01:10:59PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,

> But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
> follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
> could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.

Just to take a different stance on this. I am netizen for 25+ years and
i am reading 100+ Mailinglists - tagging is very polite, organized and
low volume by my comparisons.

Discussions like the ones we have on tagging are about designing a
system which is a matter of taste, not strict rules. Replying by
repeating or adding little detail to other words makes individual
standpoints. Participants then also follow people by personal trust not
just arguments so it is sometimes important to make your point by
publicly agreeing. I sometimes think its some kind of implicit
liquid democracy, delegating "votes" by trust.

Yes - People are emotionally involved and tend to reply to every single
mail trying to make their point. Still - its a very lively debate.

But in the end i fail to see a problem ;)

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                     [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Tagging mailing list
I see the 'moderate replies' Frederick is calling for more of a reminder than something else.
Keeping the content more concise and to the point would certainly help more voices to be heard.
Yves




Le 7 février 2021 16:50:22 GMT+01:00, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> a écrit :

Hi Frederik

On Sun, Feb 07, 2021 at 01:10:59PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,

But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.

Just to take a different stance on this. I am netizen for 25+ years and
i am reading 100+ Mailinglists - tagging is very polite, organized and
low volume by my comparisons.

Discussions like the ones we have on tagging are about designing a
system which is a matter of taste, not strict rules. Replying by
repeating or adding little detail to other words makes individual
standpoints. Participants then also follow people by personal trust not
just arguments so it is sometimes important to make your point by
publicly agreeing. I sometimes think its some kind of implicit
liquid democracy, delegating "votes" by trust.

Yes - People are emotionally involved and tend to reply to every single
mail trying to make their point. Still - its a very lively debate.

But in the end i fail to see a problem ;)

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
On 07/02/2021 12:10, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Things that I see too often:
>
> * Repetition of one's own arguments. If you say something, and someone
> else opposes that, simply let it stand. You have said your thing, the
> other guy has said their thing, you don't need to say "but I still think
> that" and then repeat everything in other words.

I fundamentally disagree with this. Within an argument if a point bears
repeating from an onslaught of of 'ah yes, but what about...' or 'oh, &
another thing...' (which is often the way arguments proceed)  it shows
the point is robust proving its validity.

> * Repetition of someone else's arguments in different words. All too
> often we have five people essentially saying the same thing in slightly
> different words. Everyone believes that the other person has got it
> *almost* right but they want to add one tiny bit, or stress another
> aspect, and boom, there goes a new three-page essay.

Again, shows a point has validity in numbers.

If extended discussions are too tough for you, just ignore them,

The rest of your comments look, ironically, like a long winded
repetition.(TL;DR)

  DaveF


> * Quick-fire responses. One person writes something, and three others
> reply immediately, without having fully read or understood the other
> responses, leading to a broad overlap between responses. If people were
> willing to wait a little longer, maybe they could do away with their
> response altogether because someone else has already said it.
>
> * Mistaking the list for a voting platform - while it is important to
> gauge what the community opinion is, if one person says something and
> three others have opposed, then it is not necessary to add a fourth,
> fifth, and sixth opposing voice. Three against is clear enough.
>
> * Wanting to comment on everything - there's a few people here who seem
> to see it as their responsibility to participate in every single thread.
> I've been there, done that. Nowadays I still read all the threads, and I
> ask myself: Is this an emergency where people will do something really
> bad if I don't join the discussion and try to steer them away? If it
> isn't, then I try to remain silent on that topic even if (!) I think
> that people are maybe overlooking a minor detail or the discussion isn't
> going exactly as I would like it.
>
> Before you post to this mailing list, remember that every single post
> uses some bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited. The more bandwidth is
> wasted on unnecessary "I 99% agree but there's this one little thing
> that I feel I need to write three pages about", the less bandwidth
> remains for the important stuff. And a high-bandwidth mailing list
> presents a higher hurdle for participation, so the more unnecessary
> words we make, the fewer people will be willing and able to participate.
>
> Before you post, ask yourself: Does what I have to say really have an
> impact? Is what I am about to write something that the 100s of readers
> of this list need to read?
>
> Set yourself reasonable limits; think about how you can help us all to
> save bandwidth. For example such limits could be "don't send more than
> one message per day on average", or "try to make it a habit to reply to
> things on the next day, rather than on the same day - unless your reply
> has already been made redundant by then".
>
> I think this mailing list is important and good work is being done here,
> and I want to keep it functioning. Hence this call for "moderation", in
> the sense of "observing reasonable limits". Your help is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Skyler Hawthorne
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
I often find myself not participating in many discussions on these lists unless I really have to for some thing I want to do, because the culture is very rigid and abrasive. It's definitely not everyone in this list, but besides the noise, there are a few frequent posters who are very difficult to deal with, only offering negative feedback without offering anything constructive, and I often see very disrespectful language being used, especially toward OSMF members. The good faith principle is kind of a joke here to be quite honest, even if it's not intentional.

I often see new posters, or people who are active in OSM, but typically not active in these lists, post here and get treated with disrespect. I can't help but think it contributes to a lack of more widespread adoption, because no one wants to deal with difficult and disrespectful gatekeepers.

Some may not welcome this feedback. I don't want to point to any specific examples because it's not appropriate to call out individual behavior in such a large audience, but I see it go unchallenged so often that I feel this needs to be said.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Seth Deegan
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
Could we please shift and enforce tagging proposal discussion to the proposal's Wiki Talk page only

I proposed this to the tagging mailing list awhile ago: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-January/058127.html 

The tagging mailing list would then only be used for the announcement of proposals and their status. 

This could help cut down on message quantity and also the problem of 2 different discussion happening between the Wiki and the mailing list that the proposer and voters need to keep track of.


On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:35 AM Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I've chosen a somewhat cheeky subject on purpose. I don't mean to say
that this list requires a moderator, or that people on this list are
impolite and offensive and all that stuff - on the contrary, this
mailing list is a place where discussions are generally factual and we
don't have trolls, abuse, bigotry, or any of that.

What I am calling for is moderation in the sense of restraint, or (a
definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) "observing reasonable
limits".

Discussions about tagging are important for OSM, and it is good that
they are being held here on an open mailing list. It is also good that
we are actually discussing and not just upvoting and downvoting. I don't
want to change any of that.

But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.

Things that I see too often:

* Repetition of one's own arguments. If you say something, and someone
else opposes that, simply let it stand. You have said your thing, the
other guy has said their thing, you don't need to say "but I still think
that" and then repeat everything in other words.

* Repetition of someone else's arguments in different words. All too
often we have five people essentially saying the same thing in slightly
different words. Everyone believes that the other person has got it
*almost* right but they want to add one tiny bit, or stress another
aspect, and boom, there goes a new three-page essay.

* Quick-fire responses. One person writes something, and three others
reply immediately, without having fully read or understood the other
responses, leading to a broad overlap between responses. If people were
willing to wait a little longer, maybe they could do away with their
response altogether because someone else has already said it.

* Mistaking the list for a voting platform - while it is important to
gauge what the community opinion is, if one person says something and
three others have opposed, then it is not necessary to add a fourth,
fifth, and sixth opposing voice. Three against is clear enough.

* Wanting to comment on everything - there's a few people here who seem
to see it as their responsibility to participate in every single thread.
I've been there, done that. Nowadays I still read all the threads, and I
ask myself: Is this an emergency where people will do something really
bad if I don't join the discussion and try to steer them away? If it
isn't, then I try to remain silent on that topic even if (!) I think
that people are maybe overlooking a minor detail or the discussion isn't
going exactly as I would like it.

Before you post to this mailing list, remember that every single post
uses some bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited. The more bandwidth is
wasted on unnecessary "I 99% agree but there's this one little thing
that I feel I need to write three pages about", the less bandwidth
remains for the important stuff. And a high-bandwidth mailing list
presents a higher hurdle for participation, so the more unnecessary
words we make, the fewer people will be willing and able to participate.

Before you post, ask yourself: Does what I have to say really have an
impact? Is what I am about to write something that the 100s of readers
of this list need to read?

Set yourself reasonable limits; think about how you can help us all to
save bandwidth. For example such limits could be "don't send more than
one message per day on average", or "try to make it a habit to reply to
things on the next day, rather than on the same day - unless your reply
has already been made redundant by then".

I think this mailing list is important and good work is being done here,
and I want to keep it functioning. Hence this call for "moderation", in
the sense of "observing reasonable limits". Your help is greatly
appreciated.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Skyler Hawthorne
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 at 17:22, Skyler Hawthorne <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
 but besides the noise, there are a few frequent posters who are very difficult to deal with, only offering negative feedback without offering anything constructive,

It may be a failing on my part, but I can often see when an idea has problems
without knowing how to fix those problems.  Do you really think that
I should not call attention to the problems unless I can also suggest
a solution?  Do you think that ignoring a problem causes it to
cease to be a problem?
 
and I often see very disrespectful language being used,

I don't see much disrespectful language.  I see people making points
strongly, but not disrespectfully.  I see disrespectful language elsewhere
but this list is very tame.

The good faith principle is kind of a joke here to be quite honest, even if it's not intentional.

Ah, the well-known good faith principle of implying that most people are acting
in bad faith, even if only unintentionally.  And how, exactly, does one act in
bad faith unintentionally, given that bad faith is an intentional act?

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Marc_marc
Hello,

Le 07.02.21 à 19:26, Paul Allen a écrit :
> Do you really think that I should not call attention
> to the problems unless I can also suggest a solution?

why not just say it like that?
it's probably more pleasant to read than "there's a problem"
without anything more.

Regards,
Marc



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Marc_marc
In reply to this post by Seth Deegan
Hello,

Le 07.02.21 à 18:28, Seth Deegan a écrit :
> Could we please *shift* and *enforce* tagging proposal discussion to the
> proposal's Wiki Talk page *only*? 

have you read the answers or is this just a replay ?

Regards,
Marc



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Skyler Hawthorne
In reply to this post by Paul Allen

Feb 7, 2021 13:28:39 Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:

It may be a failing on my part, but I can often see when an idea has problems
without knowing how to fix those problems.  Do you really think that
I should not call attention to the problems unless I can also suggest
a solution?  Do you think that ignoring a problem causes it to
cease to be a problem?

Consider someone who puts together an import plan, and presents it to everyone for feedback. Negative feedback is good; if there is a problem, it is valuable to voice it. However, consider the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time doing research and planning, who gets a reponse that is just something like "This would conflate badly in this situation", and nothing else.

You could instead say, "Great work on the plan! I can see this being very valuable. I did consider that in this situation, the data might end up conflating badly. I don't know the data set as well as you do, but do you think there is a way to fix it?"

In the first one, when you only say something negative with nothing else, it gives the implicit impression that you only see a problem with the plan, and by extension, you do not want it to proceed. It is a form of gatekeeping.

However, in the second, you acknowledge and appreciate the work that went into it, and indicate that you would like to see the project proceed, while also presenting your problem in a way that invites discussion and coordination with the person who did the proposal.

This is a good thing to do, even when the feedback is a hard no, for example when there is an incompatible license on the data.

The major point is that there is a human being on the other side of the screen, usually one who wants the same thing you do: to improve OSM.

The good faith principle is kind of a joke here to be quite honest, even if it's not intentional.

Ah, the well-known good faith principle of implying that most people are acting
in bad faith, even if only unintentionally.  And how, exactly, does one act in
bad faith unintentionally, given that bad faith is an intentional act?

--
Paul

One can act in bad faith unintentionally the same way that people can be racist unintentionally. If you aren't fully conscious of your biases, or you unconsciously make assumptions about someone's knowledge or skill level on a particular topic, you are acting on bad faith.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Marc_marc
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
Hello,

Le 07.02.21 à 15:56, Simon Poole a écrit :
> See
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/045873.html
> given that in the mean time any notion of voluntary restraint seems to
> have vanished, I'm not very optimistic about any such call for moderation.

human time being limited, if you want more inclusion, you automatically
have to reduce it to include more people.

we had the same double issue on talk-fr

1) length of messages: a top-post response that in addition to the whole
original message sometimes need to fly over the original message again.
Making a precise quote would already bring a small improvement.
Going to the essential too, some answers are really long (and I say
this as someone who often writes too long messages).
on talk-fr the limit has been reduced to 50kb per message.
it has been reached several times, not only because of technical
problems (an html email written with word, of an inordinate size)
than by the person I'm talking about in the following point
it also has a small positive effect as the quote of the messages.

2) number of messages per person per timeframe.
on talk-fr, in the past, per episode, one person monopolized the
conversation with messages that were unreasonable both in size and
number. A limit has been set.
limiting to one message per person per day seems provoking.
putting a limit at 10 or 20 seems to me beneficial for diversity.
setting a size limit seems to me beneficial for quality.

Regards,
Marc



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Stefan Tauner
In reply to this post by Skyler Hawthorne
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:25:55 +0000 (UTC)
Skyler Hawthorne <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Feb 7, 2021 13:28:39 Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>
> > It may be a failing on my part, but I can often see when an idea has problems
> > without knowing how to fix those problems.  Do you really think that
> > I should not call attention to the problems unless I can also suggest
> > a solution?  Do you think that ignoring a problem causes it to
> > cease to be a problem?  
>
> Consider someone who puts together an import plan, and presents it to everyone for feedback. Negative feedback is good; if there is a problem, it is valuable to voice it. However, consider the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time doing research and planning, who gets a reponse that is just something like "This would conflate badly in this situation", and nothing else.
>
> You could instead say, "Great work on the plan! I can see this being very valuable. I did consider that in this situation, the data might end up conflating badly. I don't know the data set as well as you do, but do you think there is a way to fix it?"
>
> In the first one, when you only say something negative with nothing else, it gives the implicit impression that you only see a problem with the plan, and by extension, you do not want it to proceed. It is a form of gatekeeping.

This impression is, however, created at the receiver's end. This is one
of the many cultural and personal differences that make collaboration
hard. The main goal of critique is to show ways to improve something.
To that end, highlighting the problematic parts is essential and
constructive by itself. I personally don't want to read a lengthy and
florid praise of my work if it is not truthful and adds nothing to the
feedback. I find that actually appalling in many instances because of
its insincerity and value the rest of the feedback as less trustworthy.
However, I am aware that this view is very weird to other people and
try to compensate for that when writing feedback to others as well as
when being on the receiving end. I certainly don't always succeed
though.

TL;DR: Please don't try to enforce subjective criteria on how feedback
is to be presented.

That being said, giving positive feedback if it is warranted is of
course important, not not only psychologically but also to make sure
good parts remain on refinements and good ideas get re-applied in
future situations. Simply saying thanks to somebody investing their time
in good faith does not hurt anybody either.
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Diego Cruz Alonso
Hi everybody,

There is no doubt that this list requires moderation in general, but especially on the part of certain users who seem to believe that their (negative) opinion is necessary on every single matter discussed here. I think I'm not only speaking for myself when I say that this list acts as a barrier to potential proposals, however reasonable they may be, both by the tone of some replies and by the fact that everyday users tend to not express their agreement to discussons, even though they technically have no problem whatsoever with the proposals.

Criticism is of course necessary and welcome to improve the map, but plain opposition should be exercised moderately and with caution. I'm sure that even the silliest proposal can be improved instead of rejected. We must not forget that this is a community made up by volunteers and that no user has authority over the others to use "authoritarian" tones or to impose their vision in every single thread knowing that most of us will be silent. And this includes avoiding unpolite, blunt or sarcastic replies. By that I don't mean that you should just give every proposal "a lengthy and florid praise", as Stefan Tauner puts it, but you can voice your concerns to an idea without the need to make someone else feel useless. We need to encourage (new) users to map more, not the other way around. And since this is an international group, everybody should adapt to a tone of voice that is perceived as friendly by the majority (and not expect the rest of us to accept it as constructive, because it is not how it looks to most of us).

That said, I don't expect anything to change, but please know that there are many people tired of seeing constant rejections. I want to offer my support to everybody who is trying to map objects from ogham stones to Portuguese traditional pavements to natural features in Sweden. With some moderation their efforts shouldn't be so exhausting.

Best regards
Diego Cruz


El lun, 8 feb 2021 a las 4:09, Stefan Tauner (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:25:55 +0000 (UTC)
Skyler Hawthorne <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Feb 7, 2021 13:28:39 Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>
> > It may be a failing on my part, but I can often see when an idea has problems
> > without knowing how to fix those problems.  Do you really think that
> > I should not call attention to the problems unless I can also suggest
> > a solution?  Do you think that ignoring a problem causes it to
> > cease to be a problem? 
>
> Consider someone who puts together an import plan, and presents it to everyone for feedback. Negative feedback is good; if there is a problem, it is valuable to voice it. However, consider the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time doing research and planning, who gets a reponse that is just something like "This would conflate badly in this situation", and nothing else.
>
> You could instead say, "Great work on the plan! I can see this being very valuable. I did consider that in this situation, the data might end up conflating badly. I don't know the data set as well as you do, but do you think there is a way to fix it?"
>
> In the first one, when you only say something negative with nothing else, it gives the implicit impression that you only see a problem with the plan, and by extension, you do not want it to proceed. It is a form of gatekeeping.

This impression is, however, created at the receiver's end. This is one
of the many cultural and personal differences that make collaboration
hard. The main goal of critique is to show ways to improve something.
To that end, highlighting the problematic parts is essential and
constructive by itself. I personally don't want to read a lengthy and
florid praise of my work if it is not truthful and adds nothing to the
feedback. I find that actually appalling in many instances because of
its insincerity and value the rest of the feedback as less trustworthy.
However, I am aware that this view is very weird to other people and
try to compensate for that when writing feedback to others as well as
when being on the receiving end. I certainly don't always succeed
though.

TL;DR: Please don't try to enforce subjective criteria on how feedback
is to be presented.

That being said, giving positive feedback if it is warranted is of
course important, not not only psychologically but also to make sure
good parts remain on refinements and good ideas get re-applied in
future situations. Simply saying thanks to somebody investing their time
in good faith does not hurt anybody either.
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

Mar Mar

Hi as well,

fully agree with Diego. I'd like to encourage everybody to imagine we'd say things face to face when we write. I am aware this requires more effort but I strongly feel this is needed to make sure we achieve the best results both on technical as well as personal level. Thanks for resuming exactly what I am perceiving, Diego.

Cheers,
Marcos


Am 09.02.2021 19:24, schrieb Diego Cruz:

Hi everybody,
 
There is no doubt that this list requires moderation in general, but especially on the part of certain users who seem to believe that their (negative) opinion is necessary on every single matter discussed here. I think I'm not only speaking for myself when I say that this list acts as a barrier to potential proposals, however reasonable they may be, both by the tone of some replies and by the fact that everyday users tend to not express their agreement to discussons, even though they technically have no problem whatsoever with the proposals.
 
Criticism is of course necessary and welcome to improve the map, but plain opposition should be exercised moderately and with caution. I'm sure that even the silliest proposal can be improved instead of rejected. We must not forget that this is a community made up by volunteers and that no user has authority over the others to use "authoritarian" tones or to impose their vision in every single thread knowing that most of us will be silent. And this includes avoiding unpolite, blunt or sarcastic replies. By that I don't mean that you should just give every proposal "a lengthy and florid praise", as Stefan Tauner puts it, but you can voice your concerns to an idea without the need to make someone else feel useless. We need to encourage (new) users to map more, not the other way around. And since this is an international group, everybody should adapt to a tone of voice that is perceived as friendly by the majority (and not expect the rest of us to accept it as constructive, because it is not how it looks to most of us).
 
That said, I don't expect anything to change, but please know that there are many people tired of seeing constant rejections. I want to offer my support to everybody who is trying to map objects from ogham stones to Portuguese traditional pavements to natural features in Sweden. With some moderation their efforts shouldn't be so exhausting.
 
Best regards
Diego Cruz
 

El lun, 8 feb 2021 a las 4:09, Stefan Tauner (<[hidden email]>) escribió:
On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:25:55 +0000 (UTC)
Skyler Hawthorne <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Feb 7, 2021 13:28:39 Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>
> > It may be a failing on my part, but I can often see when an idea has problems
> > without knowing how to fix those problems.  Do you really think that
> > I should not call attention to the problems unless I can also suggest
> > a solution?  Do you think that ignoring a problem causes it to
> > cease to be a problem? 
>
> Consider someone who puts together an import plan, and presents it to everyone for feedback. Negative feedback is good; if there is a problem, it is valuable to voice it. However, consider the perspective of someone who spends a lot of time doing research and planning, who gets a reponse that is just something like "This would conflate badly in this situation", and nothing else.
>
> You could instead say, "Great work on the plan! I can see this being very valuable. I did consider that in this situation, the data might end up conflating badly. I don't know the data set as well as you do, but do you think there is a way to fix it?"
>
> In the first one, when you only say something negative with nothing else, it gives the implicit impression that you only see a problem with the plan, and by extension, you do not want it to proceed. It is a form of gatekeeping.

This impression is, however, created at the receiver's end. This is one
of the many cultural and personal differences that make collaboration
hard. The main goal of critique is to show ways to improve something.
To that end, highlighting the problematic parts is essential and
constructive by itself. I personally don't want to read a lengthy and
florid praise of my work if it is not truthful and adds nothing to the
feedback. I find that actually appalling in many instances because of
its insincerity and value the rest of the feedback as less trustworthy.
However, I am aware that this view is very weird to other people and
try to compensate for that when writing feedback to others as well as
when being on the receiving end. I certainly don't always succeed
though.

TL;DR: Please don't try to enforce subjective criteria on how feedback
is to be presented.

That being said, giving positive feedback if it is warranted is of
course important, not not only psychologically but also to make sure
good parts remain on refinements and good ideas get re-applied in
future situations. Simply saying thanks to somebody investing their time
in good faith does not hurt anybody either.
--
Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: This list requires moderation

stevea
In reply to this post by Diego Cruz Alonso
On Feb 9, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Diego Cruz <[hidden email]> wrote:
> ...to natural features in Sweden. With some moderation their efforts shouldn't be so exhausting.

I'd like to amplify my position towards Anders' approach to improving natural features in Sweden.  As I hope I made clear in my many replies to him (on-list and off, which he didn't answer), I fully support improving natural features as they were discussed, as there are real difficulties and concepts like "fuzzy" to clarify and better establish.  The also-difficult topic of tagging while expecting rendering performance "with a certain appearance" is something that remains problematic, OSM being a data project, not necessarily one that offers a "soup to nuts" complete solution of data entry AND the intrinsic inclusion of specifically-rendered maps.  IMO, this latter point isn't a problem in or with OSM, though it seems to continue to be a problem in the minds of some (newer, less familiar) contributors.  This should be something OSM addresses through better communication of basic points like "OSM is a data project" and "don't map for the renderer..." but we must improve explaining why and what to do about this when such "holes" in understanding our project frustrate people.  OSM doesn't want to frustrate, even if we do sometimes.

I don't wish to sound immodest as I say this, but I was acting as a (self-appointed) moderator to Anders, addressing his tone and negativity, while agreeing with the "problems" (unsolved tagging challenges) he brought to this list — and that they deserve effort on the part of the thoughtful people who might solve them by participating here.  It is certainly possible (and actually happens) that truly deserving issues present here with a tone that is demanding, insulting and entitled — unacceptable behavior, really — even as the issues are real and worthy of thoughtful consideration and good discussion.  That's what happened in this case.  That did deserve some moderation, and the list (while apparently exhausted by it — I certainly sensed this while it was underway) didn't shut me down / tell me to stop or call me ineffective (on-list or off) as I did.

Yes, it was exhausting for all involved:  me, Anders and no doubt the list.  I attribute this to the very-apparent-to-me mismatch between the decorum of politeness we expect here being violated by the original poster's insistence that we cater to his whims, since we were a "broken map" that didn't meet his rendering expectations (as he compared us to his "gold standard" of national maps, setting his expectations of what maps "should" look like in his part of the world).

I do not like that it was so exhausting.  However, I have no regrets for (that short time) wearing a self-appointed moderator's hat to calm the choppy waters of a sometimes-necessary discussion:  that of not addressing not only some basic misunderstandings (rendering is the realm of renderers, not necessarily of tagging, even though they are related, not always obviously) but of the attitude of coming to this list with the distinctly insulting tone of "this isn't even a 'real' map" and a deep sense of entitlement that we cater to one mappers localized "gold standard" expectations.  That is a fine line to walk, may yet today remain unclear in the minds of some and so deserves at least this restatement here and now to better clarify.

I don't wish to be a moderator here, expecting that my (and others') good behavior and generally helpful tone will model how we want interactions on this list to be:  cordial, thoughtful, contributory (not subtractive), productive and if critical, at least constructive in its criticism.  Solutions to better moderation on this list must be wide and inclusive, I support all which are.  Importantly, they must address "poor tone," insulting-to-OSM behavior and a sense of entitlement in requests (or even demands) for what they are.  This should result in "catching early, catching often" what we wish to NOT see here, while explaining why to those who (wisely) "read before they post" to capture a sense of what is expected decorum.  I don't know if I did a fantastic job of that with Anders (it was difficult), but it does seem it was effective.  (Though, I'm not sure of how much work addressing Anders' truly-worthy issues continue to be addressed, discussed or thought of off-list and in more-local contexts).  When all is working well, such exemplary behavior (the better the better!) can inspire.

In short, there are better ways and poor ways to post here.  When / as we identify the poor examples as they happen, and why, we moderate this list.  Other forms of moderation (like pre-screening every post) do so as well, but with much more effort and maybe only marginally better success.  "Self-policing" can work if it is "watched for effectiveness" by the greater tagging list community.  Ideally, this produces a feedback loop that self-corrects without difficult amounts of effort.

Thank you for reading.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging