Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Simon Poole]

Am 07.12.2014 10:41, schrieb Sarah Hoffmann:

> 
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Melelani Sax-Barnett 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And to your other point, yes, absolutely we need to reach out more. But I
>>> think both are equally important -- it doesn't matter how hard you work
>>> convincing people to join your community if you plop them right down in the
>>> middle of a toxic environment. They're going to try to remain anonymous in
>>> their participation if they stay at all.
> 
> First of all, OSM never has had a problem with anonymous participation. It's 
> our long tail that makes the map as detailed as it is. Second, I'm still
> missing proof that indeed the communication style is the main reason that
> people stay away. 


Just as a reminder to all, we do have access to an academic study that
investigates the reasons why contributors go away.

See
http://icaci.org/files/documents/ICC_proceedings/ICC2013/_extendedAbstract/401_proceeding.pdf






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Sarah Hoffmann]

Hi Tom and Melelani,

you two raise similar points, so let me answer them together.

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 02:48:12PM -0500, Tom MacWright wrote:
> "There are bigger problems to be solved" is true for every problem. Writing
> a CoC is the problem we're trying to solve, in this thread, on this list,
> right now.

> Is the problem that this was the wrong level of punishment, or that
> moderation in itself is not welcome?

Neither. My problem is that the judgement was applied in an unbalanced way.
What I saw was two people bringing their private little feud onto this
mailing list. They were both rude, they were both out of line. I can even
see a point when the moderation argues that it was a repeated offence.
But again, that applies to both parties. A moderate reaction in such
a case is that moderation closes the thread with a general statement of
what has been done wrong (e.g. "be reminded that private wars don't belong
on the mailing list") and sanctioned the parties involved equally.
Moderation chose to sanction only one side, without adequately explaining
why different messures were applied.

> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Melelani Sax-Barnett 
> wrote:
> >
> > And to your other point, yes, absolutely we need to reach out more. But I
> > think both are equally important -- it doesn't matter how hard you work
> > convincing people to join your community if you plop them right down in the
> > middle of a toxic environment. They're going to try to remain anonymous in
> > their participation if they stay at all.

First of all, OSM never has had a problem with anonymous participation. It's 
our long tail that makes the map as detailed as it is. Second, I'm still
missing proof that indeed the communication style is the main reason that
people stay away. I certainly can say that it is not the reason for me to
keep my participation in mailing lists low. So you might actually be working
on a solution for a problem that is not as severe as you might think.

I really liked Alyssa's talk at SOTM-US 2012. Analysing the communication
behaviour on the mailing lists with statistical methods seemed such a wonderful
idea. Unfortunately, the talk stop right at the point after counting
participation and failed to go into acutal communication behaviour. If there
was a follow up, I failed to notice it.

Also remember that the definition of toxic environment is not the same for
every culture because every culture has its own traditions when it comes
to social interaction. The OSM community is very diverse already and we deal
with these issues every day, sometimes well, sometimes less good. I think
the CoCs could benefit a lot from this experience. Ironically, the contributors
to the current CoCs seem to be almost exclusively North-American.

Sarah


> >
> > Just my thoughts.
> > Mele
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> sorry for warming up this discussion just when everybody has cooled down,
> >> but something about this whole incident keeps bothering me.
> >>
> >> Imagine that the situation at hand would have been slightly different,
> >> imagine it would have played out like this (purely hypothetical of
> >> course):
> >>
> >>  Serge, in a thread about childcare, makes a thoughtless, humorously meant
> >>  side-mark that is quite a bit derogative to women. Alyssa, having had a
> >>  bad day (don't we all have those), replies with an angry mail, stating
> >>  that this was the worst insult she has ever heard and that he should be
> >>  ashamed of himself. Serge immediately replies that she has always been an
> >>  asshole and that he doesn't talk to people like her.
> >>
> >> Would the moderation have banned Alyssa in this situation? Would the
> >> others
> >> on this list have been so ready to defend Serge's reaction or would it
> >> have
> >> been more likely that it still would have been Serge who would have ended
> >> up being reprimanded for using swear words?
> >>
> >> Consider this more of a rhetorical question but it highlights what has
> >> been
> >> bothering me about the entire diversity debate since very much the
> >> beginning.
> >> There seems to be too little discussion on how to correct the skewed
> >> proportions
> >> in the distribution of mappers. Instead everything seems focused on the
> >> protection of minorities, rather euphemistically called creating a safe
> >> place,
> >> and finger pointing. I find that dangerous on many levels.
> >>
> >> First of all, invoking protection is not the same as showing respect and
> >> interest in minority groups. Protectors always have a certain self-
> >> interest, may that be a commercial interest or just the goal of feeling
> >> better about themselves by seemingly helping the helpless. And that
> >> carries
> >> the danger that protection becomes misguided.  In the case of gender
> >> diversity this has gone so far that the whole discussion is now focussed
> >> on the argument that woman need protection. Basical

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Tom MacWright]

"There are bigger problems to be solved" is true for every problem. Writing
a CoC is the problem we're trying to solve, in this thread, on this list,
right now.

Is the problem that this was the wrong level of punishment, or that
moderation in itself is not welcome?

If the former, Serge should contest it. If the latter, how do we fix the
mailing lists - or is this level of vitriol fine for everyone?

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Melelani Sax-Barnett 
wrote:

> To your first question, if anyone else (and I do mean anyone) had
> responded as harshly and also had a history of that kind of behavior, yes,
> I'd certainly hope that they'd be banned as well. But that's of course up
> to a moderator/group of moderators to think carefully about it and make a
> fair decision, which I'd argue is what happened here.
>
> And to your other point, yes, absolutely we need to reach out more. But I
> think both are equally important -- it doesn't matter how hard you work
> convincing people to join your community if you plop them right down in the
> middle of a toxic environment. They're going to try to remain anonymous in
> their participation if they stay at all.
>
> Just my thoughts.
> Mele
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry for warming up this discussion just when everybody has cooled down,
>> but something about this whole incident keeps bothering me.
>>
>> Imagine that the situation at hand would have been slightly different,
>> imagine it would have played out like this (purely hypothetical of
>> course):
>>
>>  Serge, in a thread about childcare, makes a thoughtless, humorously meant
>>  side-mark that is quite a bit derogative to women. Alyssa, having had a
>>  bad day (don't we all have those), replies with an angry mail, stating
>>  that this was the worst insult she has ever heard and that he should be
>>  ashamed of himself. Serge immediately replies that she has always been an
>>  asshole and that he doesn't talk to people like her.
>>
>> Would the moderation have banned Alyssa in this situation? Would the
>> others
>> on this list have been so ready to defend Serge's reaction or would it
>> have
>> been more likely that it still would have been Serge who would have ended
>> up being reprimanded for using swear words?
>>
>> Consider this more of a rhetorical question but it highlights what has
>> been
>> bothering me about the entire diversity debate since very much the
>> beginning.
>> There seems to be too little discussion on how to correct the skewed
>> proportions
>> in the distribution of mappers. Instead everything seems focused on the
>> protection of minorities, rather euphemistically called creating a safe
>> place,
>> and finger pointing. I find that dangerous on many levels.
>>
>> First of all, invoking protection is not the same as showing respect and
>> interest in minority groups. Protectors always have a certain self-
>> interest, may that be a commercial interest or just the goal of feeling
>> better about themselves by seemingly helping the helpless. And that
>> carries
>> the danger that protection becomes misguided.  In the case of gender
>> diversity this has gone so far that the whole discussion is now focussed
>> on the argument that woman need protection. Basically, this is just
>> playing on
>> the same old stereotype that woman are weak and cannot defend themselves.
>> I find that annoying and derogative. To me, it's nothing but chauvinism
>> in disguise. This thread is a classic example. The general consensus
>> seems to be that Alyssa can be forgiven because she needs her safe space
>> while Serge can handle a decent beating and doesn't need respect or
>> forgiveness.
>>
>> The second problem is that protectionism wants to justify itself. To that
>> end
>> here on this list (following the lead of the geek feminism discussions)
>> it has been repeatedly encouraged to find and call out offense in all
>> human social interactions. While it indeed can help to rise awareness
>> to certain misguided social conventions, it has it's dangers because it
>> tends
>> to make huge issues out of small blunders. It's exactly what has happened
>> in the last two days on this list. Personally, I'm more for "don't
>> take offense where none is meant". But that might be cultural. If you
>> want offense to be pointed out, then you absolutely must first have
>> mechanisms in place to deal with it objectively. This list has obviously
>> no such mechanism as it has simply banned somebody for pointing
>> out such an offense. (As, at the same time, you seem perfectly happy with
>> people calling each other names, it makes no sense to pretend that Serge
>> was banned for the tone of his message.)
>>
>> Third, there is an inherent prejudgement of the majority groups here,
>> in particular in the harassment debates. Voicing disagreement is
>> frequently
>> taken to be synonymous to trolling or harassment. If you are male, your
>> words
>> are taken to be sexist.

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Melelani Sax-Barnett]

To your first question, if anyone else (and I do mean anyone) had responded
as harshly and also had a history of that kind of behavior, yes, I'd
certainly hope that they'd be banned as well. But that's of course up to a
moderator/group of moderators to think carefully about it and make a fair
decision, which I'd argue is what happened here.

And to your other point, yes, absolutely we need to reach out more. But I
think both are equally important -- it doesn't matter how hard you work
convincing people to join your community if you plop them right down in the
middle of a toxic environment. They're going to try to remain anonymous in
their participation if they stay at all.

Just my thoughts.
Mele

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Sarah Hoffmann  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> sorry for warming up this discussion just when everybody has cooled down,
> but something about this whole incident keeps bothering me.
>
> Imagine that the situation at hand would have been slightly different,
> imagine it would have played out like this (purely hypothetical of course):
>
>  Serge, in a thread about childcare, makes a thoughtless, humorously meant
>  side-mark that is quite a bit derogative to women. Alyssa, having had a
>  bad day (don't we all have those), replies with an angry mail, stating
>  that this was the worst insult she has ever heard and that he should be
>  ashamed of himself. Serge immediately replies that she has always been an
>  asshole and that he doesn't talk to people like her.
>
> Would the moderation have banned Alyssa in this situation? Would the others
> on this list have been so ready to defend Serge's reaction or would it have
> been more likely that it still would have been Serge who would have ended
> up being reprimanded for using swear words?
>
> Consider this more of a rhetorical question but it highlights what has been
> bothering me about the entire diversity debate since very much the
> beginning.
> There seems to be too little discussion on how to correct the skewed
> proportions
> in the distribution of mappers. Instead everything seems focused on the
> protection of minorities, rather euphemistically called creating a safe
> place,
> and finger pointing. I find that dangerous on many levels.
>
> First of all, invoking protection is not the same as showing respect and
> interest in minority groups. Protectors always have a certain self-
> interest, may that be a commercial interest or just the goal of feeling
> better about themselves by seemingly helping the helpless. And that carries
> the danger that protection becomes misguided.  In the case of gender
> diversity this has gone so far that the whole discussion is now focussed
> on the argument that woman need protection. Basically, this is just
> playing on
> the same old stereotype that woman are weak and cannot defend themselves.
> I find that annoying and derogative. To me, it's nothing but chauvinism
> in disguise. This thread is a classic example. The general consensus
> seems to be that Alyssa can be forgiven because she needs her safe space
> while Serge can handle a decent beating and doesn't need respect or
> forgiveness.
>
> The second problem is that protectionism wants to justify itself. To that
> end
> here on this list (following the lead of the geek feminism discussions)
> it has been repeatedly encouraged to find and call out offense in all
> human social interactions. While it indeed can help to rise awareness
> to certain misguided social conventions, it has it's dangers because it
> tends
> to make huge issues out of small blunders. It's exactly what has happened
> in the last two days on this list. Personally, I'm more for "don't
> take offense where none is meant". But that might be cultural. If you
> want offense to be pointed out, then you absolutely must first have
> mechanisms in place to deal with it objectively. This list has obviously
> no such mechanism as it has simply banned somebody for pointing
> out such an offense. (As, at the same time, you seem perfectly happy with
> people calling each other names, it makes no sense to pretend that Serge
> was banned for the tone of his message.)
>
> Third, there is an inherent prejudgement of the majority groups here,
> in particular in the harassment debates. Voicing disagreement is frequently
> taken to be synonymous to trolling or harassment. If you are male, your
> words
> are taken to be sexist. If you are straight, you must be homophobic etc.
> I'm exaggerating a bit but that is what the current atmosphere feels like
> to me. The result is that members of the majority groups prefer to
> shut up and gather in smaller groups among themselves where they are
> free of such prejudgement. It's exactly the opposite of what a diversity
> debate should result in.
>
> A final remark: there is a good reason I haven't joined this list before
> today. I had the intent to do so about two weeks after it was founded.
> Looking through the archives before finishing the subscription

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Sarah Hoffmann]

Hi,

sorry for warming up this discussion just when everybody has cooled down,
but something about this whole incident keeps bothering me.

Imagine that the situation at hand would have been slightly different,
imagine it would have played out like this (purely hypothetical of course):

 Serge, in a thread about childcare, makes a thoughtless, humorously meant
 side-mark that is quite a bit derogative to women. Alyssa, having had a
 bad day (don't we all have those), replies with an angry mail, stating
 that this was the worst insult she has ever heard and that he should be
 ashamed of himself. Serge immediately replies that she has always been an
 asshole and that he doesn't talk to people like her.

Would the moderation have banned Alyssa in this situation? Would the others
on this list have been so ready to defend Serge's reaction or would it have
been more likely that it still would have been Serge who would have ended
up being reprimanded for using swear words?

Consider this more of a rhetorical question but it highlights what has been
bothering me about the entire diversity debate since very much the beginning.
There seems to be too little discussion on how to correct the skewed proportions
in the distribution of mappers. Instead everything seems focused on the
protection of minorities, rather euphemistically called creating a safe place,
and finger pointing. I find that dangerous on many levels.

First of all, invoking protection is not the same as showing respect and
interest in minority groups. Protectors always have a certain self-
interest, may that be a commercial interest or just the goal of feeling
better about themselves by seemingly helping the helpless. And that carries
the danger that protection becomes misguided.  In the case of gender
diversity this has gone so far that the whole discussion is now focussed
on the argument that woman need protection. Basically, this is just playing on
the same old stereotype that woman are weak and cannot defend themselves.
I find that annoying and derogative. To me, it's nothing but chauvinism
in disguise. This thread is a classic example. The general consensus
seems to be that Alyssa can be forgiven because she needs her safe space
while Serge can handle a decent beating and doesn't need respect or forgiveness.

The second problem is that protectionism wants to justify itself. To that end
here on this list (following the lead of the geek feminism discussions)
it has been repeatedly encouraged to find and call out offense in all
human social interactions. While it indeed can help to rise awareness
to certain misguided social conventions, it has it's dangers because it tends
to make huge issues out of small blunders. It's exactly what has happened
in the last two days on this list. Personally, I'm more for "don't
take offense where none is meant". But that might be cultural. If you
want offense to be pointed out, then you absolutely must first have
mechanisms in place to deal with it objectively. This list has obviously
no such mechanism as it has simply banned somebody for pointing
out such an offense. (As, at the same time, you seem perfectly happy with
people calling each other names, it makes no sense to pretend that Serge
was banned for the tone of his message.)

Third, there is an inherent prejudgement of the majority groups here,
in particular in the harassment debates. Voicing disagreement is frequently
taken to be synonymous to trolling or harassment. If you are male, your words
are taken to be sexist. If you are straight, you must be homophobic etc.
I'm exaggerating a bit but that is what the current atmosphere feels like
to me. The result is that members of the majority groups prefer to
shut up and gather in smaller groups among themselves where they are
free of such prejudgement. It's exactly the opposite of what a diversity
debate should result in.

A final remark: there is a good reason I haven't joined this list before
today. I had the intent to do so about two weeks after it was founded.
Looking through the archives before finishing the subscription process,
the first message I came upon was a mail from Alyssa rallying up support
against another NYC mapper whom she had some personal disagreement with.
I didn't know who it was at the time but that wasn't important anyway.
To me the message had every aspect of a mobbing campaign. It did not
fill me with confidence that this list is a safe place to speak your
mind freely. So I walked away.

My opinion has not improved since then, so it's unlikely that I will stay.
If you are truly interested in improving diversity, I strongly suggest that
you go out meet the people you want to draw in, understand what their
interests are and what would attract them to participate in OpenStreetMap.
Then go to the people who are already part of OSM, talk to them and
understand what makes them tick. Listen, then listen, and finally
listen some more. Only then will it be possible to come up
with a strategy on h

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Randal Hale]

and you are correct - I shouldn't have went asshole. I will apologize 
for using the word.


I'm 2000% good with moderation or a ban. I'm happy with it because I did 
something to hopefully stop the silliness that a percentage of the users 
exhibit up here. I hope the COC causes some people to think 
twice...possibly leavebecause the bad behavior will not be tolerated.


I was referred here over a similar blowup - I'm looking for my diverse 
OSM using community. I witnessed the same thing happening again - it 
shouldn't happen here of all places. Too many times in my OSM life I've 
run into problems over abusive behavior. I've been on both sides of it - 
I'm no angel in this by any stretch.  I've had well respected users in 
the community go "LOL you know that's just the way  
is...LOL...Gotta love him/her" and excuse the behavior. Well - no I 
don't have to excuse it. It's inexcusable. Same thing with me calling 
serge an asshole. Inexcusable.


I don't believe this is a personal play ground for a few - although it 
seems that way far too often. I try to stay involved - and I see these 
outbursts. I want more people in OSM - But I'm not going to drag them 
into an environment where this can happen...and is tolerated.


I'm fine with a ban/moderation if that falls in line with the COC. It 
won't be appealed because I know calling someone a name shouldn't be 
tolerated. In the same way attacking someone over email shouldn't be 
tolerated or appealed. I had a friend leave OSM due to Serge's 
outbursts. He was rude to her in person. He was rude to her over email. 
She's gone. Won't be back. I brought her back into this a second time 
after the first incident going: "LOL you know that's just the way in the blank> is...LOL...Gotta love him/her". It was Stupid on my part 
because I knew what would happen...if it happened once it will happen 
again.


Alyssa doesn't need banned or moderated. She responded to an attack. All 
she deserves is welcomed back.


Randy.


On 12/04/2014 10:24 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2014-12-03 19:55 GMT+01:00 Tom MacWright >:


He didn't: his message didn't merit an apology and doesn't merit
respect.



even if his message wouldn't merit respect, he as a person likely 
does. Really no need to call anyone an asshole, especially when the 
topic is the discussion of a code of conduct.


cheers,
Martin


--
-
Randal Hale
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 rjh...@northrivergeographic.com
twitter:rjhale http://about.me/rjhale
http://www.northrivergeographic.com/spatial-connect

___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Mikel Maron]

Darrell, all
OSM does have mailing list moderation guidelines. 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette#Process_for_ModerationWe've 
applied them to other lists, which have improved things a _tiny_ bit.
As a moderator, I'd say a time bound block is appropriate. We haven't done 60 
days before, but 1 week. Anyway, I think that's moderator's discretion.The 
steps aren't perfect, could be improved, and maybe a longer time period is 
appropriate. I suppose these will get brought into the whatever is worked out 
with the Code of Conduct as well.
-Mikel   * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

 On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:13 PM, Darrell Fuhriman 
 wrote:
   
 

 I’ve been thinking a lot about last night and this morning’s emails.
The role of moderator in cases like this is not one I relish, nor for that 
matter, did I expect that it would be a role I would have to take on on this 
particular list. In retrospect, that was probably naïve.  I don’t think this is 
a job that should be vested in one person (see below), but I also appreciate 
that we don’t currently have a better option, nor the time to figure one out at 
this point.
As far as guidance goes, the closest thing we have is the draft of our presumed 
future CoC: 
https://github.com/osmlab/CoC-mailing-lists/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md
I think Serge’s comment was a clear violation of the CoC, starting with “be 
nice”. As Mele pointed out, the first rule should be “assume good intentions”. 
I appreciate that Serge and Alyssa have a history, one of which I have very 
limited knowledge, however that doesn’t absolve one of the need to make this 
assumption. The same is true of Alyssa.
I believe that Alyssa made an honest mistake. When some people found her 
comment offensive, I believe the better response should have been to take it as 
an opportunity to enlighten, not to inflame. Taking the education route is 
particularly important when talking about something like neurodiversity, which 
is a relatively new concept that not everyone may be familiar with (as should 
have been clear given prior discussion). It is, I think, telling that I found 
Alan’s e-mail far more elucidating than Serge’s.
Now, back to the CoC. The guidance given there is thus:   
   - First occurrence: A moderator will remind the mailing list as a whole of 
this code of conduct and the specific inappropriate behavior.
   - Second occurrence: We will send you a private message with a warning that 
any additional violations will result in removal from the community.
   - Third occurrence: Depending on the violation, we may need to ban you from 
the mailing list
[…] • Extreme violations of a threatening, abusive, destructive or illegal 
nature will be addressed immediately and are not subject to 3 strikes.
Alan also raises the very important point that it can be hard to determine what 
constitutes a first offense.  Paul argues that actions off-list “would not 
generally be in scope”. Not all that long ago, I would probably have agreed. 
However, I’ve had to deal with conference CoC violations recently, and not in 
an abstract way, but in straight-up “what do we do now” kind of way.  As part 
of that, I consulted with “outside experts” on this very question, and have 
come to the opposite conclusion. If the goal is to create a safe, welcoming, 
and diverse community, then all actions that take place within that community 
are indeed “in scope”. The purpose of CoC’s is to protect the community as a 
whole, not to just create islands of protection.
The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a pattern 
of behavior, and not an isolated incident. However, it’s certainly up for 
debate whether this meets the “extreme violation” criteria. That makes me feel 
that this situation can’t be shoe-horned into the guidance given in the draft 
CoC. 
Further, the CoC gives no guidance on best practices on who should moderate and 
how, so I find myself essentially having to decide by fiat, which is not my 
ideal, but sometimes decisions need to be made.
Therefore, this is what I have decided:
1) Serge will be prevented from posting for 60 days. After such time, he will 
be put on indefinite, but presumed temporary, moderation. There’s a pattern of 
behavior, but I believe fundamentally that people can improve and learn. We 
need to make room for that.
2) I would like there to be more moderators than just me and Alyssa. We got the 
job by virtue of being the ones to request the list be created, which is hardly 
ideal. So I’m soliciting volunteers to join a “moderation committee” of at 
least three people. They would be tasked with identifying and sanctioning CoC 
violations. Hopefully it will be a job requiring no work. Alyssa is welcome to 
join this committee, and if she does, I would ask that she recuse herself from 
any decisions regarding this incident.
3) Upon establishment of this committee, Serge may request an appeal of my 
decision.
Yours in striving

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-03 19:55 GMT+01:00 Tom MacWright :

> He didn't: his message didn't merit an apology and doesn't merit respect.



even if his message wouldn't merit respect, he as a person likely does.
Really no need to call anyone an asshole, especially when the topic is the
discussion of a code of conduct.

cheers,
Martin
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Tom MacWright]

Serge's message was not a careful explanation. He didn't assume that Alyssa
was well-intentioned and instead he immediately dropped to the level of
personal attack and public shaming - in the most literal sense, saying "you
should be ashamed of yourself."

He could have written a careful explanation, and could have communicated
his feelings in a productive way. He didn't: his message didn't merit an
apology and doesn't merit respect.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2014-12-03 16:05 GMT+01:00 Tom MacWright :
>
>> I support the ban: what Serge wrote was abusive, personal, and hurtful,
>> easily falling into the 'extreme' bin.
>>
>>
>
> I believe that if Serge got banned, Alyssa and Randal should get banned as
> well. He was carefully explaining, despite his resentfulness, why he got
> hurt by her statement, a statement that was presumably ironic in its
> intentions, but surely shouldn't have been posted to a diversity mailing
> list (btw. in a thread that Serge had started about neurodiversity, and
> where he had explained the sensibility of the argument). And what is their
> reply? An apology? No, they called him an "asshole", here, on the public
> diversity list where a code of conduct for OSM shall emerge. Even if you
> believed he was, how can you call for "respect for everybody" and in the
> same breath deny it to him?
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-12-03 16:05 GMT+01:00 Tom MacWright :

> I support the ban: what Serge wrote was abusive, personal, and hurtful,
> easily falling into the 'extreme' bin.
>
>

I believe that if Serge got banned, Alyssa and Randal should get banned as
well. He was carefully explaining, despite his resentfulness, why he got
hurt by her statement, a statement that was presumably ironic in its
intentions, but surely shouldn't have been posted to a diversity mailing
list (btw. in a thread that Serge had started about neurodiversity, and
where he had explained the sensibility of the argument). And what is their
reply? An apology? No, they called him an "asshole", here, on the public
diversity list where a code of conduct for OSM shall emerge. Even if you
believed he was, how can you call for "respect for everybody" and in the
same breath deny it to him?

cheers,
Martin
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Tom MacWright]

I support the ban: what Serge wrote was abusive, personal, and hurtful,
easily falling into the 'extreme' bin.

If it were a comment on a blog, it would get deleted. If it was on
Metafilter, he would be banned. If it were real-life, it would start a
fight. No: it isn't acceptable.

Rarely are talk lists moderated. Frequently they should be. This is a toxic
place.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Randal Hale  wrote:

> and for my position over leaving - I do apologize.
>
> I came here seeking a community after an import gone wrong. There was a
> lot of fault on both sides on how that discussion went down (myself and the
> import group - there were also voices of encouragement that came from
> import also). It was toxic overall. I was pointed to the diversity list -
> so I've been lurking and watching. Hoping to see a community that I'm still
> not entirely sure exists. That's a much longer discussion for another day.
>
> What got me here was the same unpleasantness we experienced over that
> email. I err on the side of being extreme in cases like that. It's the
> second time Alyssa has come under fire (IMO) - and the second time it was
> uncalled for. After speaking with her this is more like the 3rd incident. I
> don't have enough fingers for what my friend (female) experienced from some
> of the OSM'ers.
>
> As Serge once put it (paraphrased in an off topic email) "I've got
> authority issues". True. Like I said - the same attitude that drove me here
> appears again. I personally hate COCs. Much in the same way I hate Home
> owner associations. But - it's needed at this point. I will gladly accept
> moderated/banned/etc if it encourages community decency. There's been a
> profound lack of it for various reasons. I'm personally tired of the
> indecency. I teach classes in OSM mostly for fun - my first 15 to 20
> minutes if covering toxicity in the community. I would love to not do that
> - this is my first step in throwing that section out. That's 20 more
> minutes for after class drinks.
>
> I do Mapping for pay and for fun. I like OSM. I am torn every time I
> encourage someone to get involved - for fear of "recent unpleasantness". So
> I drew a line and line drawing is most unhelpful.
>
> I broke a personal rule - threatening to leave. For that I'm sorry. Better
> to leave than announce it.
>
> Darrel - thanks for what you are doing. It is appreciated and not
> thankless in the least.
>
> Alan - thank you for the level head.
>
> Randy.
>
>
>
>
> On 12/03/2014 07:58 AM, Alan McConchie wrote:
>
>> So I have a lot of comments here. Bear with me.
>>
>> First I want to say that I support Darrell's decision. I'm sure it was a
>> difficult decision to make. Given the complexity of the context, I think it
>> was as firm as necessary but also appropriately flexible considering that
>> this is the first time that moderator power has been exercised on this
>> list, and given that the CoC is not officially in force yet.
>>
>> Thanks, Paul, for pointing out that this list has not formally adopted
>> the CoC. Paul writes, "[a] moderator could use such a code of conduct as a
>> guide to coming to a decision, but the decision must be justified in of
>> itself." Firstly, I think Darrell's decision shows that he _was_ trying to
>> follow the spirit of the CoC, while making some necessary adjustments. For
>> example, the CoC says nothing about 60 day bans, only that violations are
>> forgiven after 6 months. I think the 60 day temporary ban that Darrell
>> decided on is a smart compromise to make the list feel safe in the short
>> term and make everyone take a deep breath, but without being as severe as a
>> complete ban. I think Darrell was very careful to come up with a solution
>> that wouldn't be perceived as dictatorial.
>>
>> Secondly, I think the decision was justified in and of itself. Clearly
>> the messages in this thread show that there is disagreement among the list
>> members as do whether the decision was appropriate or if it was
>> "overstepping bounds". Fundamentally all these decisions will be somewhat
>> subjective on the part of the moderator. Note that even in the draft CoC
>> there is a clause that extreme violations (which includes "abusive"
>> statements) are not subject to the three-strikes rule. Obviously, this will
>> be a subjective decision that the moderator(s) will have to make. There
>> will always be times where the moderators will have to make decisions that
>> some of the list membership will disagree with. But personally, and for
>> this list especially, I would rather see the moderator error on the side of
>> enforcing the CoC and trying to keep this list as a safe space, rather than
>> leaning on the side of laissez faire free-speech. We have plenty of that on
>> the other OSM lists, and they all have a well-earned reputation as toxic
>> spaces.
>>
>> It's also significant that Darrell outlined an in-list appeal process,
>> and I'd also like to thank Paul for pointing out that Serge ca

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Randal Hale]

and for my position over leaving - I do apologize.

I came here seeking a community after an import gone wrong. There was a 
lot of fault on both sides on how that discussion went down (myself and 
the import group - there were also voices of encouragement that came 
from import also). It was toxic overall. I was pointed to the diversity 
list - so I've been lurking and watching. Hoping to see a community that 
I'm still not entirely sure exists. That's a much longer discussion for 
another day.


What got me here was the same unpleasantness we experienced over that 
email. I err on the side of being extreme in cases like that. It's the 
second time Alyssa has come under fire (IMO) - and the second time it 
was uncalled for. After speaking with her this is more like the 3rd 
incident. I don't have enough fingers for what my friend (female) 
experienced from some of the OSM'ers.


As Serge once put it (paraphrased in an off topic email) "I've got 
authority issues". True. Like I said - the same attitude that drove me 
here appears again. I personally hate COCs. Much in the same way I hate 
Home owner associations. But - it's needed at this point. I will gladly 
accept moderated/banned/etc if it encourages community decency. There's 
been a profound lack of it for various reasons. I'm personally tired of 
the indecency. I teach classes in OSM mostly for fun - my first 15 to 20 
minutes if covering toxicity in the community. I would love to not do 
that - this is my first step in throwing that section out. That's 20 
more minutes for after class drinks.


I do Mapping for pay and for fun. I like OSM. I am torn every time I 
encourage someone to get involved - for fear of "recent unpleasantness". 
So I drew a line and line drawing is most unhelpful.


I broke a personal rule - threatening to leave. For that I'm sorry. 
Better to leave than announce it.


Darrel - thanks for what you are doing. It is appreciated and not 
thankless in the least.


Alan - thank you for the level head.

Randy.



On 12/03/2014 07:58 AM, Alan McConchie wrote:

So I have a lot of comments here. Bear with me.

First I want to say that I support Darrell's decision. I'm sure it was a 
difficult decision to make. Given the complexity of the context, I think it was 
as firm as necessary but also appropriately flexible considering that this is 
the first time that moderator power has been exercised on this list, and given 
that the CoC is not officially in force yet.

Thanks, Paul, for pointing out that this list has not formally adopted the CoC. Paul 
writes, "[a] moderator could use such a code of conduct as a guide to coming to a 
decision, but the decision must be justified in of itself." Firstly, I think 
Darrell's decision shows that he _was_ trying to follow the spirit of the CoC, while 
making some necessary adjustments. For example, the CoC says nothing about 60 day bans, 
only that violations are forgiven after 6 months. I think the 60 day temporary ban that 
Darrell decided on is a smart compromise to make the list feel safe in the short term and 
make everyone take a deep breath, but without being as severe as a complete ban. I think 
Darrell was very careful to come up with a solution that wouldn't be perceived as 
dictatorial.

Secondly, I think the decision was justified in and of itself. Clearly the messages in this thread 
show that there is disagreement among the list members as do whether the decision was appropriate 
or if it was "overstepping bounds". Fundamentally all these decisions will be somewhat 
subjective on the part of the moderator. Note that even in the draft CoC there is a clause that 
extreme violations (which includes "abusive" statements) are not subject to the 
three-strikes rule. Obviously, this will be a subjective decision that the moderator(s) will have 
to make. There will always be times where the moderators will have to make decisions that some of 
the list membership will disagree with. But personally, and for this list especially, I would 
rather see the moderator error on the side of enforcing the CoC and trying to keep this list as a 
safe space, rather than leaning on the side of laissez faire free-speech. We have plenty of that on 
the other OSM lists, and they all have a well-earned reputation as toxic spaces.

It's also significant that Darrell outlined an in-list appeal process, and I'd 
also like to thank Paul for pointing out that Serge can also appeal to the 
Communications Working Group. I think both of these channels for appeal should 
be kept open. Maybe it's good that we will have our own appeals process in 
addition to the CWG, because we may want to develop different standards on this 
list compared to other lists. We should discuss this further.

I'd also like to address Paul's observation about Alyssa's "repeated 
triggering". Personally, I think her statement was made in good faith and I don't 
think it would warrant anything beyond a warning (if that), but I realize others

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Alan McConchie]

So I have a lot of comments here. Bear with me.

First I want to say that I support Darrell's decision. I'm sure it was a 
difficult decision to make. Given the complexity of the context, I think it was 
as firm as necessary but also appropriately flexible considering that this is 
the first time that moderator power has been exercised on this list, and given 
that the CoC is not officially in force yet.

Thanks, Paul, for pointing out that this list has not formally adopted the CoC. 
Paul writes, "[a] moderator could use such a code of conduct as a guide to 
coming to a decision, but the decision must be justified in of itself." 
Firstly, I think Darrell's decision shows that he _was_ trying to follow the 
spirit of the CoC, while making some necessary adjustments. For example, the 
CoC says nothing about 60 day bans, only that violations are forgiven after 6 
months. I think the 60 day temporary ban that Darrell decided on is a smart 
compromise to make the list feel safe in the short term and make everyone take 
a deep breath, but without being as severe as a complete ban. I think Darrell 
was very careful to come up with a solution that wouldn't be perceived as 
dictatorial.

Secondly, I think the decision was justified in and of itself. Clearly the 
messages in this thread show that there is disagreement among the list members 
as do whether the decision was appropriate or if it was "overstepping bounds". 
Fundamentally all these decisions will be somewhat subjective on the part of 
the moderator. Note that even in the draft CoC there is a clause that extreme 
violations (which includes "abusive" statements) are not subject to the 
three-strikes rule. Obviously, this will be a subjective decision that the 
moderator(s) will have to make. There will always be times where the moderators 
will have to make decisions that some of the list membership will disagree 
with. But personally, and for this list especially, I would rather see the 
moderator error on the side of enforcing the CoC and trying to keep this list 
as a safe space, rather than leaning on the side of laissez faire free-speech. 
We have plenty of that on the other OSM lists, and they all have a well-earned 
reputation as toxic spaces.

It's also significant that Darrell outlined an in-list appeal process, and I'd 
also like to thank Paul for pointing out that Serge can also appeal to the 
Communications Working Group. I think both of these channels for appeal should 
be kept open. Maybe it's good that we will have our own appeals process in 
addition to the CWG, because we may want to develop different standards on this 
list compared to other lists. We should discuss this further.

I'd also like to address Paul's observation about Alyssa's "repeated 
triggering". Personally, I think her statement was made in good faith and I 
don't think it would warrant anything beyond a warning (if that), but I realize 
others may see things differently. I'm not opposed to discussing Alyssa's 
statements further, but I think Serge needs to be responsible for his own 
actions regardless of what we think about what Alyssa said. If we want to 
propose that the moderator gives Alyssa a warning or other sanction, then we 
should take that up in a separate thread.

I appreciate Frederik's concerns about the appearance of a "secret court", and 
I agree that evidence should be presented publicly as much as possible, but I 
think there are also lots of situations where secrecy and privacy is at least 
as important, especially to protect accusers from retaliation. This mailing 
list is not a court of law, and we don't necessarily have to follow those 
rules. It's difficult to balance public and private evidence, and again it's a 
situation where we simply have to have moderators that the list trusts to make 
wise decisions. If we can't trust our moderators we need a way to replace them 
with ones that most of us do trust. Part of the role of the moderator is and 
should be to make delicate decisions with information that may not be fully 
public.

We also have to trust our moderators to be balanced when listening to these 
private messages. Darrell did say "I would welcome off-list comments," before 
making his decision. I interpret that as an impartial request, not a 
solicitation of nothing but more accusations. Supporters of Serge had as much 
of a chance to weigh in as anyone else.

Also, we've now had two people saying they would leave the list if X thing 
doesn't happen. A few days ago Randal said he'd leave the list if Serge wasn't 
banned. Now Jo says she'll leave the list if the ban isn't lifted. I'd argue 
that neither of these positions are very helpful. If you're going to leave the 
list, do it for yourself for the preservation of your own sanity (I'd fully 
understand that!). But I don't think it's very effective as an ultimatum. 

Jo, I'm sorry to see you go, if you are truly intent on leaving. I'd much 
rather have you stay and help us work through

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Paul Norman]

On 12/2/2014 5:04 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
Am I to understand that felt Serge's comments were acceptable 
behavior? I was expecting to find that you at least didn't condone it. 
but sadly no where did you say Serge's comments were unacceptable.
No where did I say that his comments were acceptable or unacceptable. A 
more appropriate response would have been to enable moderation for both 
participants and perhaps the list, and then to let posts through after 
review.

Darrell even offered a process for Serge to appeal his decision.
It's worth noting that there already exists ways of appealing moderator 
decisions, though they have been seldom used in the past as few past 
decisions have overstepped their bounds.


___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Paul Norman]

*Trigger warning: This message contains information**about brain injury 
and neuro-divergent conflation*


On 12/2/2014 4:44 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
Given that this decision involves an outcome far exceeding previous 
precedents[1] based on allegations he was not given a chance to 
respond to and involved activities outside the scope of the OSMF
Although I didn't think about initially, the decision is also flawed 
given that it makes no reference to the repeated triggering 
. Issues with 
conflating brain damage with neuro-divergent conditions abound - if you 
doubt this, go to a schoolyard or certain gaming communities and listen 
to the insults. These insults are typically associated with 
discrimination events encountered by the neuro-divergent. This is not to 
say that Alyssa was aware of the nature of her offensive comments - 
although there are questions if it was part of a pattern before the two 
occurrences recently on this list.


This is not to say that any such pattern is in scope for any moderator 
action on OSMF communication channels like this list, particularly as it 
would have involved in-person events without a record of events.
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Jo Walsh]

I liked this part of what Mele had to say:

"I'm not saying that it's not okay to be angry, but it's important at this
stage to remain as level-headed as possible or seek the help of a mediator
to make sure your message is communicated successfully. At the same time,
the person who mistakenly acted in an offensive way is expected to
demonstrate that they are listening and that they will try their best to
avoid similar offenses in the future.

I know this probably all sounds silly, but we make mistakes, we will always
make mistakes, let's try not to repeat them but use them as an opportunity
to learn from each other."

I don't feel I can remain a participant in this list while any ban on Serge
is in place. I'm banning myself out of sympathy, trashing my future
reputation as a world class mediator in the process. Ah well. Please
someone let me know when you lift the ban and I will re-subscribe. This is
truly bizarro world.

Please don't GamerGate yourselves? Love


On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
>> On 12/2/2014 3:22 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list
>>> and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,
>>>
>>> "The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a
>>> pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."
>>>
>>> Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in
>>> private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about
>>> Serge.
>>>
>>> I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you
>>> that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
>>> against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in
>>> the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their
>>> decision by what he's been told.
>>>
>> Given that this decision involves an outcome far exceeding previous
>> precedents[1] based on allegations he was not given a chance to respond to
>> and involved activities outside the scope of the OSMF, I would strongly
>> encourage Serge to raise the moderator action to the appropriate body as
>> unreasonable. The appropriate body is probably the CWG.
>>
>> It should also be noted that moderator action cannot be justified as
>> enforcing a code of conduct when that code of conduct has not been adopted
>> with the consensus of the list, list-wide consensus, a directive from a WG
>> responsible, or a board decision. A moderator could use such a code of
>> conduct as a guide to coming to a decision, but the decision must be
>> justified in of itself.
>
>
>
> Frederik and Paul,
> Am I to understand that felt Serge's comments were acceptable behavior? I
> was expecting to find that you at least didn't condone it. but sadly no
> where did you say Serge's comments were unacceptable. I understand wanting
> to go to bat for Serge. He is a big contributor to OSM. But there needs to
> be consequences for our actions. I don't think what he did is excusable.
> Personally I would like to see Serge apologize to Alyssa and the community.
> We need help understanding neurodiversity, Serge can help.
>
> Kai Krueger, Jo Walsh, Melelani Sax-Barnett, Alan McConchie and others all
> responded with well crafted messages on this issue. Darrell even offered a
> process for Serge to appeal his decision.
>
> Clifford Snow
>
>
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> ___
> diversity-talk mailing list
> diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>
>
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Randal Hale]

Here's a thought - why don't you guys ask Alyssa what she thinks?

Could be a nice way to welcome her back.

Randy


On 12/02/2014 08:04 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:


On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Paul Norman > wrote:


On 12/2/2014 3:22 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of
this list
and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,

"The private responses to me have generally expressed that is
part of a
pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."

Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having
emailed you in
private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things
about Serge.

I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can
tell you
that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
against you in which some people get the chance to whisper
something in
the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly
justifying their
decision by what he's been told.

Given that this decision involves an outcome far exceeding
previous precedents[1] based on allegations he was not given a
chance to respond to and involved activities outside the scope of
the OSMF, I would strongly encourage Serge to raise the moderator
action to the appropriate body as unreasonable. The appropriate
body is probably the CWG.

It should also be noted that moderator action cannot be justified
as enforcing a code of conduct when that code of conduct has not
been adopted with the consensus of the list, list-wide consensus,
a directive from a WG responsible, or a board decision. A
moderator could use such a code of conduct as a guide to coming to
a decision, but the decision must be justified in of itself.



Frederik and Paul,
Am I to understand that felt Serge's comments were acceptable 
behavior? I was expecting to find that you at least didn't condone it. 
but sadly no where did you say Serge's comments were unacceptable. I 
understand wanting to go to bat for Serge. He is a big contributor to 
OSM. But there needs to be consequences for our actions. I don't think 
what he did is excusable. Personally I would like to see Serge 
apologize to Alyssa and the community. We need help understanding 
neurodiversity, Serge can help.


Kai Krueger, Jo Walsh, Melelani Sax-Barnett, Alan McConchie and others 
all responded with well crafted messages on this issue. Darrell even 
offered a process for Serge to appeal his decision.


Clifford Snow


--
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us 
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch


___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk


--
-
Randal Hale
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 rjh...@northrivergeographic.com
twitter:rjhale http://about.me/rjhale
http://www.northrivergeographic.com/spatial-connect

___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Randal Hale]

I think instead of worrying so much about Serge's feelings or the fact 
he won't participate for 60 days - You've a person - Alyssa - who 
doesn't feel safe participating in a "diversity talk list". Just by me 
typing those words "Doesn't feel safe" - that's all the reason you need 
for a ban.


The email Serge sent speaks for itself. Had I typed that - I would 
expect banning or worse. I'm happy with the ban. I think personally 
longer - but that's why I don't want to be in charge of anything but me. 
Excessive? Maybe. It was way more than a "first offense" email. I stand 
behind Darrel completely.


To paraphrase my discussion with Darrel and Alyssa:

 * Everyone deserves respect. It wasn't shown.
 * Bullying doesn't stand for anyone. I don't care if it's neuro
   diversity, gender, religion, or ethnicity. Serge shouted alyssa
   down. She doesn't feel safe. I could stop here.
 * He banned her from a OSM Community Meetup in NY. To quote from the
   second email from Serge "You're right, Alyssa and I do have a
   history, and that does create a lens by which I read her words."
 * He could have apologized - Didn't.

If Darrel didn't follow the rules - then you have your first case study 
on a COC. Fix it. Make it crystal clear. Let the ban stand though. If 
you don't and you're condoning his actions. Condone what he did and this 
diversity talk list is just a waste of time and energy.


I don't think that it is.

Oh and congrats to Alyssa on being the OSM US Board President. Just saw 
the email.


Randy


On 12/02/2014 06:22 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Darrell,

without going into the specifics of this case, there's one bit in
your message that had a bad taste for me.

What you have essentially done is elevate Serge's message to almost
"extreme violation" status because you've decided to sanction
immediately, rather than just going through the usual procedure.

Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list
and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,

"The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a
pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."

Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in
private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about Serge.

I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you
that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in
the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their
decision by what he's been told.

"Lurkers support me in email" is a common theme on mailing lists, and it
is incredibly easy to succumb to this but a moderator especially should
not. If accusations cannot be in plain view (anonymised by the moderator
if absolutely necessary) then they should also not be used to build a
case against someone. Just like in a proper legal process, the accused
has to have a chance to see what accusations are leveled against them,
rather than just: "Emails have been sent by an undisclosed number of
unnamed people which paint the picture of the accused being a repeat
offender."

(Had I known that you were soliciting email comments about Serge's
character, who knows, I might have sent one in his favour?)

The absolute least you should have done is say something like how many
"private responses" you have had from how many people and what they
said, roughly.

Else you're not only blocking someone from participating for 60 days,
but you're also giving them the nagging feeling that there's an
undefined mob (2 people? 5? 10? 50?) out there who are happy to secretly
email everyone about an alleged "pattern of behaviour". And what
recourse is there against rumours?

Bye
Frederik



--
-
Randal Hale
North River Geographic Systems, Inc
http://www.northrivergeographic.com
423.653.3611 rjh...@northrivergeographic.com
twitter:rjhale http://about.me/rjhale
http://www.northrivergeographic.com/spatial-connect

___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Clifford Snow]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 12/2/2014 3:22 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list
>> and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,
>>
>> "The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a
>> pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."
>>
>> Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in
>> private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about
>> Serge.
>>
>> I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you
>> that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
>> against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in
>> the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their
>> decision by what he's been told.
>>
> Given that this decision involves an outcome far exceeding previous
> precedents[1] based on allegations he was not given a chance to respond to
> and involved activities outside the scope of the OSMF, I would strongly
> encourage Serge to raise the moderator action to the appropriate body as
> unreasonable. The appropriate body is probably the CWG.
>
> It should also be noted that moderator action cannot be justified as
> enforcing a code of conduct when that code of conduct has not been adopted
> with the consensus of the list, list-wide consensus, a directive from a WG
> responsible, or a board decision. A moderator could use such a code of
> conduct as a guide to coming to a decision, but the decision must be
> justified in of itself.



Frederik and Paul,
Am I to understand that felt Serge's comments were acceptable behavior? I
was expecting to find that you at least didn't condone it. but sadly no
where did you say Serge's comments were unacceptable. I understand wanting
to go to bat for Serge. He is a big contributor to OSM. But there needs to
be consequences for our actions. I don't think what he did is excusable.
Personally I would like to see Serge apologize to Alyssa and the community.
We need help understanding neurodiversity, Serge can help.

Kai Krueger, Jo Walsh, Melelani Sax-Barnett, Alan McConchie and others all
responded with well crafted messages on this issue. Darrell even offered a
process for Serge to appeal his decision.

Clifford Snow


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Jo Walsh]

+1 what Frederik said. Thanks, saved me some typing there.

We seem to have calmed down, I thought Mele had some very helpful advice.
We can all help to drag up the baseline of civility after this painfully
illustrative incident.

To me this looks like a pre-emptive attempt at a decision which there would
be absolutely no shame in retracting while there is work in progress.
On Dec 2, 2014 11:22 PM, "Frederik Ramm"  wrote:

> Darrell,
>
>without going into the specifics of this case, there's one bit in
> your message that had a bad taste for me.
>
> What you have essentially done is elevate Serge's message to almost
> "extreme violation" status because you've decided to sanction
> immediately, rather than just going through the usual procedure.
>
> Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list
> and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,
>
> "The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a
> pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."
>
> Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in
> private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about Serge.
>
> I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you
> that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
> against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in
> the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their
> decision by what he's been told.
>
> "Lurkers support me in email" is a common theme on mailing lists, and it
> is incredibly easy to succumb to this but a moderator especially should
> not. If accusations cannot be in plain view (anonymised by the moderator
> if absolutely necessary) then they should also not be used to build a
> case against someone. Just like in a proper legal process, the accused
> has to have a chance to see what accusations are leveled against them,
> rather than just: "Emails have been sent by an undisclosed number of
> unnamed people which paint the picture of the accused being a repeat
> offender."
>
> (Had I known that you were soliciting email comments about Serge's
> character, who knows, I might have sent one in his favour?)
>
> The absolute least you should have done is say something like how many
> "private responses" you have had from how many people and what they
> said, roughly.
>
> Else you're not only blocking someone from participating for 60 days,
> but you're also giving them the nagging feeling that there's an
> undefined mob (2 people? 5? 10? 50?) out there who are happy to secretly
> email everyone about an alleged "pattern of behaviour". And what
> recourse is there against rumours?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> diversity-talk mailing list
> diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
>
___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Paul Norman]

On 12/2/2014 3:22 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list
and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,

"The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a
pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."

Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in
private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about Serge.

I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you
that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in
the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their
decision by what he's been told.
Given that this decision involves an outcome far exceeding previous 
precedents[1] based on allegations he was not given a chance to respond 
to and involved activities outside the scope of the OSMF, I would 
strongly encourage Serge to raise the moderator action to the 
appropriate body as unreasonable. The appropriate body is probably the CWG.


It should also be noted that moderator action cannot be justified as 
enforcing a code of conduct when that code of conduct has not been 
adopted with the consensus of the list, list-wide consensus, a directive 
from a WG responsible, or a board decision. A moderator could use such a 
code of conduct as a guide to coming to a decision, but the decision 
must be justified in of itself.


___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

Re: [diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Frederik Ramm]

Darrell,

   without going into the specifics of this case, there's one bit in
your message that had a bad taste for me.

What you have essentially done is elevate Serge's message to almost
"extreme violation" status because you've decided to sanction
immediately, rather than just going through the usual procedure.

Your justification for this seems to be behaviour outside of this list
and/or, and this is the bit I take particular offense with,

"The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a
pattern of behavior, and not an isolated incident."

Which, in essence, means nothing less than people having emailed you in
private and influenced your decision by telling you bad things about Serge.

I've been on the unpleasant end of moderation myself and I can tell you
that there's few things more hurtful than having a "secret court"
against you in which some people get the chance to whisper something in
the moderator's ear, and the moderator ends up partly justifying their
decision by what he's been told.

"Lurkers support me in email" is a common theme on mailing lists, and it
is incredibly easy to succumb to this but a moderator especially should
not. If accusations cannot be in plain view (anonymised by the moderator
if absolutely necessary) then they should also not be used to build a
case against someone. Just like in a proper legal process, the accused
has to have a chance to see what accusations are leveled against them,
rather than just: "Emails have been sent by an undisclosed number of
unnamed people which paint the picture of the accused being a repeat
offender."

(Had I known that you were soliciting email comments about Serge's
character, who knows, I might have sent one in his favour?)

The absolute least you should have done is say something like how many
"private responses" you have had from how many people and what they
said, roughly.

Else you're not only blocking someone from participating for 60 days,
but you're also giving them the nagging feeling that there's an
undefined mob (2 people? 5? 10? 50?) out there who are happy to secretly
email everyone about an alleged "pattern of behaviour". And what
recourse is there against rumours?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk

[diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

[Darrell Fuhriman]

I’ve been thinking a lot about last night and this morning’s emails.

The role of moderator in cases like this is not one I relish, nor for that 
matter, did I expect that it would be a role I would have to take on on this 
particular list. In retrospect, that was probably naïve.  I don’t think this is 
a job that should be vested in one person (see below), but I also appreciate 
that we don’t currently have a better option, nor the time to figure one out at 
this point.

As far as guidance goes, the closest thing we have is the draft of our presumed 
future CoC: 
https://github.com/osmlab/CoC-mailing-lists/blob/master/code_of_conduct.md

I think Serge’s comment was a clear violation of the CoC, starting with “be 
nice”. As Mele pointed out, the first rule should be “assume good intentions”. 
I appreciate that Serge and Alyssa have a history, one of which I have very 
limited knowledge, however that doesn’t absolve one of the need to make this 
assumption. The same is true of Alyssa.

I believe that Alyssa made an honest mistake. When some people found her 
comment offensive, I believe the better response should have been to take it as 
an opportunity to enlighten, not to inflame. Taking the education route is 
particularly important when talking about something like neurodiversity, which 
is a relatively new concept that not everyone may be familiar with (as should 
have been clear given prior discussion). It is, I think, telling that I found 
Alan’s e-mail far more elucidating than Serge’s.

Now, back to the CoC. The guidance given there is thus:
First occurrence: A moderator will remind the mailing list as a whole of this 
code of conduct and the specific inappropriate behavior.
Second occurrence: We will send you a private message with a warning that any 
additional violations will result in removal from the community.
Third occurrence: Depending on the violation, we may need to ban you from the 
mailing list
[…]
• Extreme violations of a threatening, abusive, destructive or illegal 
nature will be addressed immediately and are not subject to 3 strikes.

Alan also raises the very important point that it can be hard to determine what 
constitutes a first offense.  Paul argues that actions off-list “would not 
generally be in scope”. Not all that long ago, I would probably have agreed. 
However, I’ve had to deal with conference CoC violations recently, and not in 
an abstract way, but in straight-up “what do we do now” kind of way.  As part 
of that, I consulted with “outside experts” on this very question, and have 
come to the opposite conclusion. If the goal is to create a safe, welcoming, 
and diverse community, then all actions that take place within that community 
are indeed “in scope”. The purpose of CoC’s is to protect the community as a 
whole, not to just create islands of protection.

The private responses to me have generally expressed that is part of a pattern 
of behavior, and not an isolated incident. However, it’s certainly up for 
debate whether this meets the “extreme violation” criteria. That makes me feel 
that this situation can’t be shoe-horned into the guidance given in the draft 
CoC. 

Further, the CoC gives no guidance on best practices on who should moderate and 
how, so I find myself essentially having to decide by fiat, which is not my 
ideal, but sometimes decisions need to be made.

Therefore, this is what I have decided:

1) Serge will be prevented from posting for 60 days. After such time, he will 
be put on indefinite, but presumed temporary, moderation. There’s a pattern of 
behavior, but I believe fundamentally that people can improve and learn. We 
need to make room for that.

2) I would like there to be more moderators than just me and Alyssa. We got the 
job by virtue of being the ones to request the list be created, which is hardly 
ideal. So I’m soliciting volunteers to join a “moderation committee” of at 
least three people. They would be tasked with identifying and sanctioning CoC 
violations. Hopefully it will be a job requiring no work. Alyssa is welcome to 
join this committee, and if she does, I would ask that she recuse herself from 
any decisions regarding this incident.

3) Upon establishment of this committee, Serge may request an appeal of my 
decision.

Yours in striving to do the right thing,

Darrell
(moderator pro-tem)

___
diversity-talk mailing list
diversity-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk