In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries > to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations > can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on > the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... > > Yes, of course. It's important to ask questions and assume the best, when > possible. > > Sometimes, the insults are as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not > miscommunication, it's a free-for-all, and it turns away new users. I've > seen it happen in real time. > > > The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" > message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not > intended as > personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt > a sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct > personal attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, > how will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". > > This point is well-taken. I should have contextualized my points so that > it was clear that I'm objecting to a particular atmosphere and want it to > improve. I do believe there are fundamental problems with the mailing list > format that contribute to that atmosphere. > > > The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out > of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a > bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the > clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument > with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, > you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is > silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened). > > Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still > have a negative experience. This is still (in theory) a volunteer-driven > effort, so that really matters. They can (and do) just leave. You can see > that the main dev of the most popular editor has already given up on these > lists for very similar reasons. That's why this is relevant: that's a > surprisingly reasonable response, so how can we fix it? How can we > interface properly and decrease alienation? > > Finally, while it is surely helpful when certain behavior is called out as > unacceptable, and it's appreciated, it doesn't happen nearly often enough > to establish a minimum sense of decorum. > > > Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels > like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take > a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be > saying. > > Oh, I think "ganging up" is fine so long as it's civil. That would be > something like consensus - sounds great! > > I may not be making my point about disagreement clear. I love > disagreement: it's healthy, it's productive, there's no other way to get > consensus. New users should be met with it, when appropriate. We should all > have robust discussions about differing views to establish the meaning of > tags. > > However, it's hard to see how "establish the meaning of tags" is served > when there are 3, 4, 5, 6, etc absolutist, often insulting, yet also > incompatible, opinions offered. That forces the visitor into this position: > ignore at least N - 1 of those people and either give up or plod along > hoping that those positions can be, in some way, taken back. I'm not simply > talking about proposals: if you ask, "how do I tag this?" and are in that > situation, you'll come away thinking that nobody knows the answer, but some > people will be very annoyed if you try to do it your way. > > Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if > disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see > that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote: >> > >> > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an >> > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal >> > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own. >> > >> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to >> understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations >> can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the >> other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... >> >> Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works >> both within and without OSM. People attach themselves to communities >> both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the >> community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and >> the people in it. For example, if I talk about the town down the road >> in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking >> about them and think that they are somehow bad people. The initial "OSM >> needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the >> other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as >> personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a >> sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal >> attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how >> will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". >> >> The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out >> of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a >> bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain >> the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an >> argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly >> childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they >> are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow >> intervened). >> >> If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe >> X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not >> the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful >> response). Take a step back, try and understand how they could have >> misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of >> "Sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was ...". >> It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2 >> paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for >> example. >> >> Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels >> like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take >> a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to >> be saying. Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and >> you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the >> problem. Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill, >> ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might >> allow another solution to emerge. Sometimes just sitting back and >> listening is the key. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
