On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> People like simple rules because they're simple. But when you go to
> figure out what the rules mean, you have to interpret them. What is
> "agreement"? Agreement with you and your buddies as to how to tag?
> Agreement with existing tags? Agr
Jeff Meyer writes:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> >
> > Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago?
> >
> Well... I like mine better. ('natch!) "Pursue the truth & agreement & do
> no harm." is a little easier to remember and covers al
Please see notes below:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> Right. So what do you think of the set of rules that I posted a bit ago?
>
> Well... I like mine better. ('natch!) "Pursue the truth & agreement & do
no harm." is a little easier to remember and covers all the cases c
Jeff Meyer writes:
> - An overarching code of behavior could be very helpful to empower the less
> aggressive mapper. Maybe something simple like: Pursue the truth &
> agreement & do no harm. It gives the oppressed some simple question to ask
> the difficult mapper. Each of the segments of the
Anthony writes:
> I agree that DWG has the authority to act, here. But as I understand it,
> the authority of DWG comes from OSMF, not from the OSM community.
The DWG is specifically asking if it should have the authority to
act. Please read the beginning message of this thread.
> Additionall
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Martijn van Exel writes:
> > 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct
> > as a response to particular cases.
>
> Hard cases make bad law, yes. But it's not a difficult decision to say
> "Don't change other people's
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Martijn van Exel writes:
> > But to come back to Richard Weait's original questions: Yes, I think
> > the DWG should act on behalf of the US community here even though it
> > seems to be a matter of conduct instead of a pure data issue.
>
>
Martijn van Exel writes:
> 1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct
> as a response to particular cases.
Hard cases make bad law, yes. But it's not a difficult decision to say
"Don't change other people's edits unless you can show that they are
editing in variance to
Anthony writes:
> It depends on whether or not the key you are replacing the old key with is
> better.
I already explained why it doesn't, and you haven't addressed that
explanation. I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you.
--
--my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com
Crynwr
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Moderation is one thing. Important messages can still go through, if
> someone is moderated. But in this case he apparently was kicked off the
> list completely. I'm not sure what behavior caused such a severe sanction,
> but if it was warranted
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 01:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > I don't get it. If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits,
> > how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the
> > proper solution?
>
> The times that I have mode
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 09:09 AM, Anthony wrote:
> > Might this not be part of the problem? Why do we allow someone to edit
> > but not to contribute to the mailing list? Doesn't that promote exactly
> > the type of behavior that some people are critic
On 11/02/2012 01:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I don't get it. If the problem is that you don't like the way he edits,
> how is blocking him from the mailing list, but allowing him to edit, the
> proper solution?
The times that I have moderated folks on this list it was for their
behavior on this list.
On 11/02/2012 09:09 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Might this not be part of the problem? Why do we allow someone to edit
> but not to contribute to the mailing list? Doesn't that promote exactly
> the type of behavior that some people are criticizing (i.e. editing
> without discussion).
No, I don't think
On 11/02/2012 05:43 AM, James Mast wrote:
> Anthony, I just got a message back from this person and he told me he
> was "Forcibly unsubscribed" from here on talk-us. That's pretty much a
> ban IMO.
nerou...@gmail.com is banned from subscribing to talk-us. The archives
are open, though, so anyone
First, I think Martijn's points have all been right on.
1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct
as a response to particular cases. When there's an actual dispute on
the table that might be addressed by an as yet imaginary code, we are
in reactionary mode and i
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:43 AM, James Mast wrote:
> Anthony, I just got a message back from this person and he told me he was
> "Forcibly unsubscribed" from here on talk-us. That's pretty much a ban IMO.
We are talking about a pattern of behavior, not a specific person.
There are several peopl
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 21:22:35 -0400
> From: o...@inbox.org
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org; rich...@weait.com; d...@osmfoundation.org;
> g...@ir.bbn.com
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
>
> I'm not sure ther
Anthony writes:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
>
> > Anthony writes:
> > > The key question is, which key was right?
> >
> > No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most
> > commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented.
>
> Without getting
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> Anthony writes:
> > The key question is, which key was right?
>
> No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most
> commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented.
Without getting specific, how can we figure out who was ri
These guidelines are all nice, but I have two reservations about where
this discussion is headed.
1) I don't think it is a good idea to come up with a code of conduct
as a response to particular cases. When there's an actual dispute on
the table that might be addressed by an as yet imaginary code,
Anthony writes:
> The key question is, which key was right?
No. Without getting too specific, my key was one of the most
commonly-used keys, while e's key was one e invented. The situation
was:
a=b
e changed it to:
c=b
where e should have done:
a=b
c=b
and left this commonplace a= tagging a
On 11/1/12 12:01 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
If, for example, the US community would express a clear preference for
local mappers having their way in tagging, then a tagging bully would
clearly and visibly operate outside of the rules of accepted
behaviour, and all his explanations about why his
Hi,
On 01.11.2012 01:18, Greg Troxel wrote:
So overall, I would say that if user A complains about user B making
non-local objectionable changes, and that's the only complaint, then
it's really hard to tell. It could be that the non-local user in some
cases is right in a sense (consider bringin
Hi,
On 01.11.2012 04:26, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
To your question of technical means; you're right that adding
technical means to entirely prevent a malicious user are difficult to
put in place, but they are not impossible, but if it's just a handful
of troublemakers, it's best to address that,
I'm not sure there is anyone *banned* from the lists. On moderation,
maybe, but so long as the emails are eventually going through that
seems okay.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:16 PM, James Mast wrote:
> If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from
> talk-us so he migh
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Russ Nelson wrote:
> So, as a generalized example of a specific instance that I have in
> mind, I added some tags to some ways which reflected data that anybody
> could verify from multiple sources with a little bit of research. I
> didn't put a source= tag because
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> DWG has the administrative tools to block an account. What we don't
> have is a clear rule stating that we can block an account for "being
> difficult".
>
> Questions for the US mapping community:
>
> 1) Do you want DWG to act on your behal
Greg Troxel writes:
> First, there's the notion that the local mappers should have priority in
> deciding how things should be tagged. I don't mean that one shouldn't
> make non-local edits - I do that after visiting places. But I don't
> make edits that I think a local might object to.
Me t
Martijn,
Thank you for this thoughtful and wise-reaching response.
I think that the kinds of issues you address in your email do deserve
consideration and contemplation, but most are not the focus of this
discussion we're having right now, which is the role of DWG in
handling what are essentially
> From: Martijn van Exel [mailto:m...@rtijn.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 2:18 PM
> To: Richard Weait
> Cc: Serge Wroclawski; d...@osmfoundation.org; Ian Dees; talk-
> u...@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)
>
> I
James Mast writes:
> If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from
> talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least? --James
No. This isn't about a person. This is about a style of mapping. If
you think that only one person is capable of defending this style
If I think I know who this is all about, maybe he should be un-banned from
talk-us so he might be able to defend himself at least? --James
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreet
Given what I've observed and heard about from other mappers, I am not
particularly surprised to hear that the DWG has been getting complaints
(although I have not filed a complaint myself). I think it's helpful to
talk about the general problem, separately from any identities.
My impression is t
Richard Weait writes:
> I would prefer to discuss this in general, and in the open.
Okay. In general, then, I have said that I believe the proper way to
edit is to not disturb anything that anybody else does[1]. That should
be rule #1, yet DUM[2] (Difficult USA Mapper) seems to feel that e[3]
can
Account restrictions could be of help for new mappers making large
mistakes. IE dragging a large selection, destroying relations ect.
Pushing good tutorials on new users would probably do more though.
Regardless restrictions only help minimize the accidental type issues but
do very little for edit
> We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are
> apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the
> specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on the
> mailing list.
Heh, one has to be quite new to talk-us to not know t
It's hard to come up with guidelines when you don't know the
specifics, but let me throw in some thoughts based on what I read:
1) If you were to take administrative action on an account, blocking
it either temporarily or permanently, how do you prevent the same
person (or group of people, or bot,
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
> We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are
> apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the
> specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on
> the mailing list.
I wou
My best take on the questions:
For this discussion your basically arbitrators. Investigate what is
involved with arbitration, what do they require and how do they manage
these issues.
1) When is "being difficult" transitioning into an edit war that DWG has
dealt with? Is this just an edit war wh
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> Richard,
>
> Thank you for this well thought out email and summary of the DWG.
>
> You've touched on an important issue, which is that the complains here
> are a bit outside the scope of normal DWG functions, and more toward
> conflict re
Richard,
Thank you for this well thought out email and summary of the DWG.
You've touched on an important issue, which is that the complains here
are a bit outside the scope of normal DWG functions, and more toward
conflict resolution and code of conduct.
This is not a role that's unfamiliar to
It would help to know the concrete incidences - any way to know more details?
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Summary
>
> The Data Working Group has had a high number of complaints about a
> small number of mappers in the USA. The matter falls outside the
> normal
Hi,
Summary
The Data Working Group has had a high number of complaints about a
small number of mappers in the USA. The matter falls outside the
normal activities of DWG. DWG would like to help, but need your
guidance in how to do so.
What is the Data Working Group?
The Data Working Group exis
44 matches
Mail list logo
