Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough

[pmailkeey .]

On 3 June 2015 at 10:17, Chris Hill  wrote:

> Mike,
> After our last exchange of messages I thought you were trying to fit in at
> least a bit. Since then I have watched your emails steadily descend into
> trolling and abuse.
>
> Time to either shut up (which I doubt you can) or leave before you're
> thrown out, which I know you're used to.
>
> OSM learned a hard lesson about trolls in the past and we're not as
> tolerant now. Carry on with abuse, bad-mouthing and extreme negativity and
> you will get banned. At first I thought that would be a shame, you needed a
> chance to fit in.  Well you've had that chance and blown it.
>
>
>
What is wrong with you ?

-- 
Mike.
@millomweb  -
For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
via *the area's premier website - *

*currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family, property
& pets*

T&Cs 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Steve Bennett]

That wasn't my intention. To be clearer:
* Some of us are supportive of the license changes,
* some of us pull our heads in and just map quietly.

Now, I will go back to doing just that.

Steve

(apologies to talk-au for the mispost)

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
>
> Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
>>
>> - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
>> supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
>> mapping quietly.
>>
>
> I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the
> license changes (and vice versa).
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5418977.html
> Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Nathan Edgars II]

Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
> 
> - Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
> supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
> mapping quietly.
> 

I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the
license changes (and vice versa).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5418977.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Steve Bennett]

Great post, and excellent honeytrap: all the poisonous people flocked
immediately to this thread and started debating it furiously.

Some points:
- verbosity/spamminess *is* disruptive. It takes a lot of time to
read, and invariably someone will respond, causing more posts. Worse,
it causes sensible people to tune out entirely, meaning threads
consist of little more than spammy bastards rehashing old arguments.
"If you don't like it, don't read it" is not a solution.
- Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
mapping quietly.
- A moderator for the key mailing lists would be a very sensible step.
I have volunteered in the past. No one should have the right to post
whatever and as much as they like with no accountability.

Steve

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Milo van der Linden]

Please, if there's anything that you don't like, just ignore it, take your
> GPS & go for walk/ride/journey.
>
> It really is that simple.
>
> Dave F.
>
>
> +1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

> You guys obviously didn't read Steve C's post at 10/08/2010 19:13.
> Please read the full thread before posting.

Err, would that be the one where he merely said “interesting statistics”
and didn’t state any conclusion?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 11/08/2010 23:42, Simon Ward wrote:

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:26:12PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:

But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting
more messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic.

I don’t think he is.  What makes you think this?

Simon


Tim,Simon

You guys obviously didn't read Steve C's post at 10/08/2010 19:13. 
Please read the full thread before posting.



Tim Mcnamara said

If someone is being really difficult, then they distract everybody.

No. Only if you let it.

I read the threads & I'm still able to get out and actually map the 
world. Why can't you?


I'm not even sure Steve C. is talking about the license argument because 
I haven't seen him mention it. He appears to not like anyone who 
dissents from his perspective.



Please, if there's anything that you don't like, just ignore it, take 
your GPS & go for walk/ride/journey.


It really is that simple.

Dave F.




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 11/08/2010 22:20, Liz wrote:


I wrote about censorship, and this is the aim at this point, as I see it.


+1

(touché Liz :-) )

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

> Post count was one metric in the video SteveC linked yesterday.  I
> don't think using that as the sole measure of a contributor would be
> reasonable.

That wasn’t the sole metric in the video, and neither did I think Steve
suggested that it should be _the_ metric either.  I can see that people
may have taken it that way out of context.  I don’t think it’s
reasonable to solely use post count either.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Richard Weait]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Simon Ward  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:26:12PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
>> But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting
>> more messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic.
>
> I don’t think he is.  What makes you think this?

Post count was one metric in the video SteveC linked yesterday.  I
don't think using that as the sole measure of a contributor would be
reasonable.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 01:26:12PM +0100, Dave F. wrote:
> But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting
> more messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic.

I don’t think he is.  What makes you think this?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Tim McNamara]

On 12 August 2010 00:26, Dave F.  wrote:
>
> But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting more
> messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic. This is unacceptable.
>

No, it's not. If someone is being really difficult, then they distract
everybody. The project stalls as people squabble and become emotionally
drained. It's best for the project if there are mechanisms for place to deal
with that.

Tim.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>  I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people
> because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more
> productive.
> sure some will continue but then it's definitely time to think about
> blocking them.

This is the sort of post I do find offensive. I presume I'm listed as 
poisonous.
I wrote about censorship, and this is the aim at this point, as I see it.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Cartinus]

On Wednesday 11 August 2010 20:22:22 Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> the real question is how to move forward as fast as possible and get the
> whole license discussion out of our mind. As several asked already let's
> open the vote for old accounts to dual license and get a strong vote for a
> license. as soon as a decision is final most of the poisonous people will
> leave. I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people
> because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more
> productive.

+1

-- 
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Peter Körner]

Am 11.08.2010 00:17, schrieb TimSC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
But where did it lead to? Random deletions in wp/de? That's not where 
OSM should go...


Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:22:22AM -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> > What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process
> > should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're
> > involved in?

> agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this. osm has open
> in the name and there is no need to block people.

“open” does not mean there aren’t any things to discourage, prevent, and
event take action against.  Take copyright and database right violations
for example: If people are not adhering to the licences and being
unreasonable about it, OSM should be able to exercise its own rights.

Blocking is very much a last resort, and I imagine that should it happen
it will be rarely.  To avoid any blocking, encourage people to be
friendly on the lists, keep on topic, and if somebody is being rude,
abusive, offensive, trolly, or even just showing their irritation, think
twice before replying and fueling the fire.

> Everyone capable of subscribing knows also how to filter certain names.

I don’t believe that, and it’s certainly easier in some clients than
others.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Apollinaris Schoell]

>
>
> What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process
> should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're
> involved in?
>
>
>
agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this. osm has open
in the name and there is no need to block people.
Everyone capable of subscribing knows also how to filter certain names.

the real question is how to move forward as fast as possible and get the
whole license discussion out of our mind. As several asked already let's
open the vote for old accounts to dual license and get a strong vote for a
license. as soon as a decision is final most of the poisonous people will
leave. I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people
because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more
productive.
sure some will continue but then it's definitely time to think about
blocking them.

thanks for writing this post. I am getting tired too of these endless
discussions!


> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 11/08/2010 12:24, Peter Körner wrote:

Am 10.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Liz:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
'Poison' is opinion.
I regard these efforts as attempted censorship

"take this back to legal-talk where it belongs"
"don't reply to poisonous posts"
censorship would it be if posts were deleted (or not filtered on the 
ML server). Not Answering to posts is a decision that everyone can 
make for himself. If only 2 people are talking instead of 20, the 
noise generated is much smaller.



Discussion needs to be free and widespread.

And follow some rules.

En exampl would be: "here is not the place to talk about recipes, go 
to chefkoch.de for that". Its absolute ok to say "please don't talk 
about technical details on the newbies@ list, please go to dev@". And 
the same way it's ok to say "talk@ is not the place for license 
discussion, go to legal@". I can't see any censorship in that.


But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting more 
messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic. This is unacceptable.


He also mentions having to "deal with malcontents."  Either he doesn't 
understand the meaning of the word or he really does want to get rid of 
those that disagree with him.


Looking at the list that he sent, I have to say I've learnt more about 
OSM from those at the top than *any* of the "key" members.


It's disappointing that he considers the "key" people to be "write code, 
build things, maintain things and run our working groups". I thought 
this was a 'crowd' project where we all contributed.
I consider the key element to the success of OSM to be the actual 
collection, collation & uploading of data.


For those that feel "sucked, emotionally drained, distracted, paralysed 
& defocused" then the solution is simple - get over yourselves & don't 
read the forums!


Points from Steve C's summary:

"- slow you down" - the forums only do that if you let them. Solution - 
don't read the threads!


"- do not let people reopen old discussions"   Why not? if there been no 
agreed solution to a problem it *should* be re-discussed, especially if 
there's new info or there's been time to think things through.


" - don't reply to _every_ message in a thread, summarise"This is 
impossible if the thread is occurring in real time; and even when it's 
not you need to reply to each spur & individuals otherwise it leads to 
complete confusion.



Dave F.







___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Peter Körner]

Am 10.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Liz:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
'Poison' is opinion.
I regard these efforts as attempted censorship

"take this back to legal-talk where it belongs"
"don't reply to poisonous posts"
censorship would it be if posts were deleted (or not filtered on the ML 
server). Not Answering to posts is a decision that everyone can make for 
himself. If only 2 people are talking instead of 20, the noise generated 
is much smaller.



Discussion needs to be free and widespread.

And follow some rules.

En exampl would be: "here is not the place to talk about recipes, go to 
chefkoch.de for that". Its absolute ok to say "please don't talk about 
technical details on the newbies@ list, please go to dev@". And the same 
way it's ok to say "talk@ is not the place for license discussion, go to 
legal@". I can't see any censorship in that.


Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[TimSC]

Steve,

I might support a code of conduct with a limited scope, but we seem to 
be moving towards a broad project wide definition of values. I am 
rapidly cooling to the idea of more central planning being imposed on 
OSM. I have previously commented that OSM has not needed to impose much 
central decision making up to now. I particularly recommend these 
wikipedia policies to potential drafters:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy

I am beginning to agree with Liz, and others, that this whole proposal 
is mainly motivated by the desire to censor dissent.


TimSC

On 10/08/10 21:29, steve brown wrote:

If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page
   



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:20:02PM -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
> > “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the
> > list”?

> Could it specify where to find the guidelines?

It could, but shouldn’t become another list of mailing lists, we already
have two.

> Simply saying "guidelines set by the list" makes it sound like it's a
> decision that was made by a vote of people on a mailing list.

How about “guidelines on the list-info page for the mailing list”?

I don’t know if Mailman’s list of mailing lists[1] can contain
customised text, but it could link to the code of conduct.  The list on
the wiki[2] can certainly link to it.

[1]: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
[2]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mailing_lists

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Simon Ward  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
> > >> Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
> > >> guidelines per mailing list too […]
> > >
> > > I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can
> have
> > > its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it.
> > > The topic of the list should be there already. :)
> >
> > Maybe a line saying "mailing list posts should follow the topic of the
> list"
>
> “Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the
> list”?
>
>
Could it specify where to find the guidelines? Simply saying "guidelines set
by the list" makes it sound like it's a decision that was made by a vote of
people on a mailing list.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
> >> Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
> >> guidelines per mailing list too […]
> > 
> > I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have
> > its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it.
> > The topic of the list should be there already. :)
> 
> Maybe a line saying "mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list"

“Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the
list”?

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
> Maybe a line saying "mailing list posts should follow the topic of the
> list"
Fine

Talk= talk

and when you get plenty you are upset?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
> One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel
> the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss
> what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the
> whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic
> or inflammatory posts.

'Poison' is opinion.
I regard these efforts as attempted censorship

"take this back to legal-talk where it belongs"
"don't reply to poisonous posts"

Discussion needs to be free and widespread.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
>> Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
>> guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate
>> list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that
>> will be super helpful.
> 
> I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have
> its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it.
> The topic of the list should be there already. :)

Maybe a line saying "mailing list posts should follow the topic of the list"

Steve

stevecoast.com


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Liz]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Patrick Kilian wrote:
> But there has been the claim "CC-BY-SA works perfectly well". If it
> actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers
> that have told us "it might very well break" that the perfectly part
> of the statement is definitely false. If it worked perfectly well
> noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement
> surfaces over and over again.

The Fear Uncertainty & Doubt exists equally in the new. 
Quote:  If it actually works has to be tested in court.
It's new, ODbL hasn't been tested in court.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
> Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
> guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate
> list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that
> will be super helpful.

I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have
its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or linked from it.
The topic of the list should be there already. :)

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

thanks steve

Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per 
mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions 
list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful.

On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:29 PM, steve brown wrote:

> Forgot the link. http://openetherpad.org/h2MuQYeCRP
> 
> On 10 August 2010 21:29, steve brown  wrote:
>> Hey
>> 
>> I've drafted a potential "OpenStreetMap Community Conduct" page -
>> would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people
>> who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and
>> abide to this code?
>> 
>> If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen  wrote:
>>> TimSC
>>> I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but
>>> OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions
>>> will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is
>>> not about wrong or right but about
>>> being clear what the intended goals are and why.
>>> 
>>> 2010/8/10 TimSC 
 
 On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:
> 
> You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines
> tell that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better then
> when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as
> poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the
> community.
 
 What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate
 how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined!
 
 TimSC
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 

Steve

stevecoast.com


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Simon Ward]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:26PM +0100, steve brown wrote:
> I've drafted a potential "OpenStreetMap Community Conduct" page -
> would people suggest any changes?

I would include the wiki in last section, and move the licence text to
the bottom.

> And more importantly, to all people who have already commented or
> started this thread, would you sign and abide to this code?

I’ve only just read the thread, but it looks pretty good to me so far.

> If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page

Done so :)

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[steve brown]

Forgot the link. http://openetherpad.org/h2MuQYeCRP

On 10 August 2010 21:29, steve brown  wrote:
> Hey
>
> I've drafted a potential "OpenStreetMap Community Conduct" page -
> would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people
> who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and
> abide to this code?
>
> If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
> On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen  wrote:
>> TimSC
>> I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but
>> OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions
>> will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is
>> not about wrong or right but about
>> being clear what the intended goals are and why.
>>
>> 2010/8/10 TimSC 
>>>
>>> On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:

 You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines
 tell that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better then
 when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as
 poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the
 community.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate
>>> how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined!
>>>
>>> TimSC
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[steve brown]

Hey

I've drafted a potential "OpenStreetMap Community Conduct" page -
would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people
who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and
abide to this code?

If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page

Thanks

Steve

On 10 August 2010 21:23, F. Heinen  wrote:
> TimSC
> I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but
> OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions
> will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is
> not about wrong or right but about
> being clear what the intended goals are and why.
>
> 2010/8/10 TimSC 
>>
>> On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:
>>>
>>> You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines
>>> tell that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better then
>>> when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as
>>> poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the
>>> community.
>>
>> What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate
>> how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined!
>>
>> TimSC
>>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 10/08/2010 20:57, Kevin Peat wrote:



On 10 August 2010 19:25, Dave F. > wrote:


 On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:

Interesting statistics:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk


What does that prove?

verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.


+1

I don't find John/Frederik/Anthony/etc. to be in the slightest bit 
poisonous. If you are not interested in what they have to say then 
don't read their postings.


Exactly.

I could tell how the recent thread was going to go from the outset & 
knew it would be treading over old ground. However I would never think I 
had the arrogant right to tell them to stop or they'll be banned.


I don't understand why many people here have the inability to *not* read 
a thread.



On the point of the license I'm not sure what is the correct way to go, 
but it does seem there's far, far too many 'what if's' on all sides of 
the argument.



Cheers
Dave F.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[F. Heinen]

TimSC
I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but
OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions
will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is
not about wrong or right but about
being clear what the intended goals are and why.

2010/8/10 TimSC 

> On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:
>
>>
>> You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines
>> tell that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better then
>> when you making this point time after time then you can be defined as
>> poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are draining the
>> community.
>>
>
> What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to moderate
> how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is defined!
>
> TimSC
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[TimSC]

On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:


You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines 
tell that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better 
then when you making this point time after time then you can be 
defined as poisonous (even though you can even be right) as you are 
draining the community.


What are you talking about? The guidelines SteveC proposed are to 
moderate how the discussion should be conducted, not how the project is 
defined!


TimSC


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Kevin Peat]

On 10 August 2010 19:25, Dave F.  wrote:

>  On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:
>
>> Interesting statistics:
>>
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk
>>
>
> What does that prove?
>
> verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.
>
>
+1

I don't find John/Frederik/Anthony/etc. to be in the slightest bit
poisonous. If you are not interested in what they have to say then don't
read their postings.

It is the lack of finality with the license change that is the problem.
Random people have posted that everything is decided and the horse has
bolted as far as changes go. If that is the case the lets have that
confirmed and clarify once and for all whether data sources such as the
OS/Nearmap/etc. are compatible with the new license and terms. Then we can
all decide if we stick with osm or not.

Kevin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[F. Heinen]

"OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a
benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all
power I. "
Your hitting the nail on the head. I totally agree here. The replies are
also a bit true pointing to when someone is defined as poisonous.
Here comes the trick, when someone really has a different but maybe valid
point then he can both be poisonous and not poisonous. This totally depends
on what the guidelines are. Andy Allen is here very right IMHO.
You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines tell
that the project is defined "red" and you think "blue" is better then when
you making this point time after time then you can be defined as poisonous
(even though you can even be right) as you are draining the community.

So I would love to see more guidelines. These guidelines should be
discussable (within terms). But then it becomes much easier to define the
targets.

[bit offtopic]
I don't want to go off topic but the whole discussion about the license is
IMHO *also* a bit caused by "the guys" leading it themselves.
The lack of clear reasoning and overview why what and where (humanly
readable in a decent location depending on the importance of the topic; so
home page of osm.org I would say) is missing. This topic is *all* about what
is from *"me"* and none understands what a license really is. I doubt even
that many don't even know why it really is needed. And now "you guys" are
telling that my data can be removed due to others not accepting a license
change?
So sure this will spam the mailinglist without an end. Such a change must
IMHO be informed better. (yes I read many documents/page already about this
change)
Note: This is not meant a bashing or blaming anyone but as how I see the
current situation on the whole license change
[/bit offtopic]

Note: I totally not believe in an anarchy. The team pyramid can be very low
and low level but there must be a lead IMHO.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[TimSC]

On 10/08/10 17:19, SteveC wrote:

OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy.
   
These two systems are not really compatible. With respect to mapping, 
which is where most effort is expended (I guess), OSM is a do-ocracy. 
For example, any tags may be used. Any mapping methodology may be used. 
And area can be mapped to any level of detail. The main thrust of OSM is 
anarchy with minimal central control (just to revert obvious vandals).


In terms of the database and servers, I would expect there is more 
consensus decision making, but that is not very visible to regular 
mappers. It just happens, apparently by magic (and thanks to the 
sysadmins and devs for being the magicians). But to expect consensus 
decisions on an issue as large as relicensing from regular contributors 
is unprecedented.


With such a diverse and large community, I am not surprised the same 
topics get repeated over and over. The mailing list discussion seems 
very transient and generally off topic, making it hard to search. Also, 
I don't expect any definite answers even if I read the entire back log. 
Perhaps a karma system like slashdot uses would work? Repetition might 
be addressed by resources other than the mailing list. I suggest 
comprehensive FAQs that can be used as references, to reduce repetition 
on the lists.


Katie has posted stats on how prolific authors are, but I don't see any 
conclusion drawn. Is it a crime to post to the mailing list frequently? 
What is your point?


So I agree that we could do with some guidelines. (I note wikipedia's 
assume good faith policy.) I think the enforcement should be community 
driven, not by an appointed committee. But given consensus decisions 
have not been previous taken by contributors, I don't think anyone 
should be surprised that relicensing is so divisive. I think the 
consensus for licensing has not been properly quantified (and if I am 
wrong, please get on with relicensing). And a consensus should not be 
used to silence dissent. That would be tyranny of the majority.


TimSC


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[John Smith]

On 11 August 2010 03:58, Peteris Krisjanis  wrote:
> Sometimes flames indicate true disagreement between two parties. It is
> enough to have two passionate people from opposite sides to have it
> going forever. I think we need not only regulate or moderate, we need
> a way to address complains too.

+1

It seems most of the problems stem from undealt with complaints that
only ended up being escalated when neither party was happy with the
outcome, and this thread is just yet another example of a bad
situation being escalated even further...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 10/08/2010 18:15, Dave F. wrote:

 On 10/08/2010 17:59, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.


I agree.

Personally I think Steve C is one of the rudest, most vitriolic voices 
on the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of "I don't 
like you because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime 
example.


Dave F.



His recent *personal* attack of another member here caused more 
disruption & put more people off contributing than *any* circular 
arguments about the license.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:

Interesting statistics:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk


What does that prove?

verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.

Dave F.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:25 PM, Dave F. wrote:

> On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:
>> Interesting statistics:
>> 
>>  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk
> 
> What does that prove?
> 
> verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.

Interestingly the talk I linked to makes the exact opposite case, even when 
people are posting hundreds of very nice emails.

Steve

stevecoast.com


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Katie Filbert]

+1 for post by SteveC

It would be great if people would put more thought into what they say, use
more restraint.  When the list becomes mostly noise, people will stop using
it.

For the months of July and August, I have run some stats to see just how
much people are posting:

For August, so far:

John Smith - 56
Anthony - 28
Frederik Ramm - 14
Richard Fairhurst - 14
80n - 13
Ben Last - 13
Ian Dees - 12
Matt Amos - 9
Liz - 8
Nathan Edgars II - 8

For July:

John Smith - 133
Frederik Ramm - 47
Liz - 24
Anthony - 22
Richard Weait - 20
Ed Avis - 19
SteveC - 18
andrzej zaborowski - 17
Oliver (skobbler) - 17
Steve Bennett - 17

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk

Cheers,
-Katie
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Peter Körner wrote:

> 
> 
> Am 10.08.2010 18:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>> Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
>> poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.
> 
> It's the dose that makes the poison, and when a very loud but small number of 
> people are very poisonous, I'd welcome a slightly poisonous move from Steve 
> to get rid of them.
> 
> In a wealthy community this move would be poison but it seems, that the OSM 
> community is somehow ill (Steve called it infected) and needs some kind of 
> Chemotherapy. Sure, that's poison, too.

Interesting statistics:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk

Steve

stevecoast.com


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Peter Körner]

Am 10.08.2010 18:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:

Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.


It's the dose that makes the poison, and when a very loud but small 
number of people are very poisonous, I'd welcome a slightly poisonous 
move from Steve to get rid of them.


In a wealthy community this move would be poison but it seems, that the 
OSM community is somehow ill (Steve called it infected) and needs some 
kind of Chemotherapy. Sure, that's poison, too.


Peter

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Peteris Krisjanis]

2010/8/10 Ian Dees :
> ...and back on topic:
> One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel
> the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss
> what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the
> whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic
> or inflammatory posts.

But if on-topic is very much debited question?

Sometimes flames indicate true disagreement between two parties. It is
enough to have two passionate people from opposite sides to have it
going forever. I think we need not only regulate or moderate, we need
a way to address complains too.

Cheers,
Peter.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi,

>> No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
>> heard. 
> Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate...
True. But I think we both agree that it is a valid point that should be
discussed and handled (hopefully in a manner to minimize data loss) in a
civilized and ordered fashion.


>> But there has been the claim "CC-BY-SA works perfectly well". If it
>> actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers 
> Can we get 2 of these lawyers to waste some of their time and to sue
> each other over this, at least that would be the end of it then one
> way or the other.
In theory a very nice idea but you would have to repeat that about 200
times to cover all relevant jurisdictions. (I'm not going to think about
the problem if we need 4 cases to test all pairs of jurisdictions.)

I certainly don't want to find out in 10 years when google is on one
side of the case and OSM on the other side. That's why I favor a move to
a license with a better chance of survival in court.


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Patrick Kilian  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >> There is a big difference between pointing out "the current form of the
> >> contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
> >> Do you really want to proceed?" and jumping into every thread and
> >> spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by
> >> different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot
> which?
> >
> > At least if you are going to start your own FUD get the details
> > correct, the estimate is 1/3-1/2 no one said anything about 80%...
> No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
> heard.
>
>
> > Secondly no one has disproved anything, unless you count speculation as
> proof.
> I was not referring to the statement that the current contributor terms
> would lead to data loss in Australia when I said "disproved FUD".
>
> But there has been the claim "CC-BY-SA works perfectly well". If it
> actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers
> that have told us "it might very well break" that the _perfectly_ part
> of the statement is definitely false. If it worked _perfectly_ well
> noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement
> surfaces over and over again.
>
>
...and back on topic:

One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel
the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss
what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the
whole community bears the responsibility: Don't reply to off-topic
or inflammatory posts.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[John Smith]

On 11 August 2010 03:42, Patrick Kilian  wrote:
> No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
> heard.

Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate...

> But there has been the claim "CC-BY-SA works perfectly well". If it
> actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers

Can we get 2 of these lawyers to waste some of their time and to sue
each other over this, at least that would be the end of it then one
way or the other.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi,

>> There is a big difference between pointing out "the current form of the
>> contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
>> Do you really want to proceed?" and jumping into every thread and
>> spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by
>> different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which?
> 
> At least if you are going to start your own FUD get the details
> correct, the estimate is 1/3-1/2 no one said anything about 80%...
No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
heard.


> Secondly no one has disproved anything, unless you count speculation as proof.
I was not referring to the statement that the current contributor terms
would lead to data loss in Australia when I said "disproved FUD".

But there has been the claim "CC-BY-SA works perfectly well". If it
actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers
that have told us "it might very well break" that the _perfectly_ part
of the statement is definitely false. If it worked _perfectly_ well
noone would have any doubt about the current license. Yet the statement
surfaces over and over again.


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Dave F.  wrote:
> Personally I think [name redacted] is one of the rudest, most vitriolic 
> voices on
> the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of "I don't like you
> because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime example.

So if we could look at inappropriate behaviour in general, without
naming names, should we aspire to good or better behaviour?  Could we
codify that?  And how do we encourage the community follow the
guidelines.

After that the question is do we want guidelines to be encouraged, or
enforced.  Some projects like Ubuntu seem to think that encouragement
isn't always enough.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[John Smith]

On 11 August 2010 03:26, Patrick Kilian  wrote:
> There is a big difference between pointing out "the current form of the
> contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
> Do you really want to proceed?" and jumping into every thread and
> spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by
> different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which?

At least if you are going to start your own FUD get the details
correct, the estimate is 1/3-1/2 no one said anything about 80%...

Secondly no one has disproved anything, unless you count speculation as proof.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave Stubbs]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> SteveC-2 wrote:
>>
>> One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: "it's a technique
>> that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from
>> actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of
>> noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and
>> if you look carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven
>> or eight people actually agree"
>>
> While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat.
> I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and
> loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a
> "poisonous person" for agreeing with them.
>
> It's pretty clear that anyone who won't agree to the new license/contributor
> terms is "poisonous" in at least one sense: their refusal is poisoning the
> data and making it necessary to cut out anything they've touched.
>
> Or perhaps they simply have weak immune systems, and the license change
> process is the poison that kills their contributions.
>
> Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
> poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.


That makes you at least partially slightly poisonous as I'm sure
you're aware :-)

Seriously though, there are limits here. There's not just people
having disagreements, there's vast amounts of deliberate trolling,
insane quantities of thread hijacking to make points that have been
made 200 times before, and a good dollop of pissing off just about
anybody who is silly enough to subscribe to osm-talk these days. Most
of us have just left it to rot, which is also a shame because that's
no good for new people.

Dave

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi,

> While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat.
> I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and
> loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a
> "poisonous person" for agreeing with them.
There is a big difference between pointing out "the current form of the
contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
Do you really want to proceed?" and jumping into every thread and
spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by
different people. Only one is poisonous to the project. Can you spot which?


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Dave F.]

 On 10/08/2010 17:59, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.


I agree.

Personally I think Steve C is one of the rudest, most vitriolic voices 
on the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of "I don't like 
you because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime example.


Dave F.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Patrick Kilian]

Hi all,

> I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people
> in OSM are feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of
> hiatus or resign. These are the key people who write code, build
> things, maintain things and run our working groups.
I'm not sure if I (still) qualify for "key people" as I have woefully
little time to maintain the osmarender stylesheets. Mobilemap and
Tagstat, two other OSM-based projects by me, also suffer from that.

But I'm certainly at a point where I'm close to stop spending time as a
mapper and as a coder on OSM, because for every minute I spend on fun
stuff I have to spend five minutes deleting stupid emails and discussing
things over and over again.

So in short: +1 from me for a code of conduct and stronger measures
against trolls eating up our time.


Patrick "Petschge" Kilian

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Nathan Edgars II]

SteveC-2 wrote:
> 
> One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: "it's a technique
> that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from
> actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of
> noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and
> if you look carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven
> or eight people actually agree"
> 
While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat.
I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and
loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a
"poisonous person" for agreeing with them.

It's pretty clear that anyone who won't agree to the new license/contributor
terms is "poisonous" in at least one sense: their refusal is poisoning the
data and making it necessary to cut out anything they've touched.

Or perhaps they simply have weak immune systems, and the license change
process is the poison that kills their contributions.

Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5393917.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El día Tuesday 10 August 2010 18:19:30, SteveC dijo:
> So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people
> are wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors,

I, for one, agree. These flame wars only waste our time. "Our" as in "all of 
us". It leads nowhere.


> What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process
> should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're
> involved in?

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think blocking is the solution. 
OSM has always been, and will be, a do-ocracy, so let's let facts and lines 
of code speak louder than words or blocks.


Let the OSMF and LWG move forward. If you don't like how the OSMF and LWG 
works, suck it up and step up for OSMF board elections next year.


Yours,
-- 
Iván Sánchez Ortega 

Un ordenador no es una televisión ni un microondas: es una herramienta 
compleja.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[steve brown]

Hey

So while I am by no means! an expert in the workings of the ubuntu
community, I can summarise as follows from
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/governance:

The Community Council is responsible for the creation of sub-groups
and teams (such as the local chapters and development teams) and helps
make sure they are run in accordance with the code of conduct.
It also is responsible for creation of the code of conduct and
management of it, including ensuring that members follow its
guidelines. It helps sort out disagreements and has a 2 weekly IRC
meeting
It publishes meeting agendas, which can be added to by anyone, and minutes.
See https://launchpad.net/~communitycouncil/+members and
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda and
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil

The Technical Council in my opinion is currently unneeded by OSM, but
in the same way I summarise:
It selects technologies to use in Ubuntu, from the kernel to GCC and X
server systems.

Steve


On 10 August 2010 17:47, Richard Weait  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, steve brown  
> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> I fully support what you have said. From the ubuntu community, their
>> code of conduct works well http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct as
>> it provides guidelines that can be adhered to, or conversely used to
>> put those who damage the community on a timeout.
>>
>> It's worked well on a few occasions, and I think an OpenStreetMap
>> version of the code of conduct that has to be signed up to would be
>> beneficial.
>
> Thank you Steve (s),
>
> Steve Brown, The Ubuntu code of conduct refers, in footnote 2 to two
> additional bodies.  Can you summarize the details and involvement of
> Technical Review Board and the Community Council in code of conduct
> issues in the Ubuntu Community?
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Serge Wroclawski]

I suggested a Code of Conduct, and have been working with OSM US for
us to adopt one. We've written a draft and were waiting for the annual
meeting and the next board to take it up

I'd like to see the OSMF adopt something similar.

A moderation policy without a code of conduct is too potentially
fraught with danger.

- Serge

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, steve brown  wrote:
[ ... ]
> I fully support what you have said. From the ubuntu community, their
> code of conduct works well http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct as
> it provides guidelines that can be adhered to, or conversely used to
> put those who damage the community on a timeout.
>
> It's worked well on a few occasions, and I think an OpenStreetMap
> version of the code of conduct that has to be signed up to would be
> beneficial.

Thank you Steve (s),

Steve Brown, The Ubuntu code of conduct refers, in footnote 2 to two
additional bodies.  Can you summarize the details and involvement of
Technical Review Board and the Community Council in code of conduct
issues in the Ubuntu Community?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[steve brown]

On 10 August 2010 17:19, SteveC  wrote:
> OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a 
> benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all 
> power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the 
> mailing list(s), run the servers, evangelize, talk to the press and so on. 
> I've successively and successfully given up those rights to very capable 
> individuals. However this has led to a power vacuum when it comes to making 
> some key decisions because nobody, for example and in a sense, is "in charge" 
> of everything. For the most part I've enjoyed giving up control and seeing 
> the project blossom, because it wouldn't have if I hadn't.
>
> However, things break down in a consensus-based community if you don't have a 
> way to deal with malcontents.
>
> As background to the topic of this post, there is a nice video on how open 
> source projects can survive poisonous people on youtube here:
>
>        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE
>
> It's about an hour long so I've provided a summary I made while watching it 
> again at the bottom of this post. It's thesis is that you need to understand 
> the problem of poisonous people, fortify your project against them, identify 
> who they are and ultimately remove them.
>
> The talk above identifies people who are poisonous as those who appear with 
> traits (amongst others) of obviousness that they will suck and drain your 
> time, use silly nicknames/email addresses, are hostile, make demands and 
> blackmail threats, make sweeping claims, refuse to acknowledge reasoned 
> argument, make accusations of conspiracy and reopen topics continuously.
>
> One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: "it's a technique that 
> poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually 
> achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and 
> people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look 
> carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people 
> actually agree"
>
> With that in mind, take a quick look at the recent discussions on the main 
> mailing list link. I won't point to an individual thread or post, it's easy 
> enough to figure out:
>
>        http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/thread.html
>
> Without discussing the individuals or the topics of the conversations, it is 
> clear to me we are infected by poisonous people. This is bad because as the 
> talk above specifies in the 'comprehension of the problem' section, such 
> people distract, drain, paralyze, slow cause needless infighting and destroy 
> the attention and focus of a community.
>
> I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM 
> are feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or 
> resign. These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain 
> things and run our working groups.
>
> There is a tipping point between which our working groups and individuals 
> have the time and patience to deal with poisonous people and the work they 
> cherish doing, which are the things that make OSM work every day.
>
> The discussions have spilled over now from poisonous people merely making 
> life difficult on the mailing list, to paralyzing the project and even 
> systematically corrupting the data we serve out using bots. This is not to 
> say there are not good points in the discussion, good points being dealt with 
> by the License Working Group or others either in meetings or on the mailing 
> lists, but these are being buried by poisonous people on the mailing list and 
> elsewhere. Personal communication from multiple people, public discussion, 
> phone calls and more have been tried without effect.
>
> This destroys consensus-baesd community.
>
> So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are 
> wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, 
> creating dissent out of nothing and even purposefully breaking our data. And 
> we don't have a clear process to deal with all the factors. The Data Working 
> Group is one piece of the puzzle, but is not responsible for curtailing the 
> mailing list going in infinite circles.
>
> Worse - it's giving the project a bad air to outsiders, both newbies and 
> those outside the project. It's stopping people from becoming more involved.
>
> Thus we need some kind of process for calling timeout on people in the 
> project, blocking them for a limited time. This could range from electing 
> individual mailing list admins with a remit of when to shut down discussions 
> (much like an IRC chat admin(s)), to more clear and actioned policies on list 
> etiquette (like forcibly keeping legal discussion to the legal list), to an 
> ejection committee to me just appointing myself benevolent dictator and 
> blocking people for a limited time out cooli

[OSM-talk] Enough is enough: disinfecting OSM from poisonous people

[SteveC]

OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a 
benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all 
power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the 
mailing list(s), run the servers, evangelize, talk to the press and so on. I've 
successively and successfully given up those rights to very capable 
individuals. However this has led to a power vacuum when it comes to making 
some key decisions because nobody, for example and in a sense, is "in charge" 
of everything. For the most part I've enjoyed giving up control and seeing the 
project blossom, because it wouldn't have if I hadn't.

However, things break down in a consensus-based community if you don't have a 
way to deal with malcontents.

As background to the topic of this post, there is a nice video on how open 
source projects can survive poisonous people on youtube here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE

It's about an hour long so I've provided a summary I made while watching it 
again at the bottom of this post. It's thesis is that you need to understand 
the problem of poisonous people, fortify your project against them, identify 
who they are and ultimately remove them.

The talk above identifies people who are poisonous as those who appear with 
traits (amongst others) of obviousness that they will suck and drain your time, 
use silly nicknames/email addresses, are hostile, make demands and blackmail 
threats, make sweeping claims, refuse to acknowledge reasoned argument, make 
accusations of conspiracy and reopen topics continuously.

One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: "it's a technique that 
poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from actually 
achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of noise and 
people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and if you look 
carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven or eight people 
actually agree"

With that in mind, take a quick look at the recent discussions on the main 
mailing list link. I won't point to an individual thread or post, it's easy 
enough to figure out:

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-August/thread.html

Without discussing the individuals or the topics of the conversations, it is 
clear to me we are infected by poisonous people. This is bad because as the 
talk above specifies in the 'comprehension of the problem' section, such people 
distract, drain, paralyze, slow cause needless infighting and destroy the 
attention and focus of a community.

I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people in OSM are 
feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of hiatus or resign. 
These are the key people who write code, build things, maintain things and run 
our working groups.

There is a tipping point between which our working groups and individuals have 
the time and patience to deal with poisonous people and the work they cherish 
doing, which are the things that make OSM work every day.

The discussions have spilled over now from poisonous people merely making life 
difficult on the mailing list, to paralyzing the project and even 
systematically corrupting the data we serve out using bots. This is not to say 
there are not good points in the discussion, good points being dealt with by 
the License Working Group or others either in meetings or on the mailing lists, 
but these are being buried by poisonous people on the mailing list and 
elsewhere. Personal communication from multiple people, public discussion, 
phone calls and more have been tried without effect.

This destroys consensus-baesd community.

So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people are 
wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors, creating 
dissent out of nothing and even purposefully breaking our data. And we don't 
have a clear process to deal with all the factors. The Data Working Group is 
one piece of the puzzle, but is not responsible for curtailing the mailing list 
going in infinite circles.

Worse - it's giving the project a bad air to outsiders, both newbies and those 
outside the project. It's stopping people from becoming more involved.

Thus we need some kind of process for calling timeout on people in the project, 
blocking them for a limited time. This could range from electing individual 
mailing list admins with a remit of when to shut down discussions (much like an 
IRC chat admin(s)), to more clear and actioned policies on list etiquette (like 
forcibly keeping legal discussion to the legal list), to an ejection committee 
to me just appointing myself benevolent dictator and blocking people for a 
limited time out cooling off period based on advice from the community (a worst 
case option I'd like to avoid).

Let's be clear - we've tried all the nice things. We've sent nice emails. We've 
sent nice emails pr