> 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?
The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical solutions to behaviors, toxicity, cultural differences etc. etc., I have read this a thousand times. I don't see how this brings us forward. But I was waiting for a cue like this. Thank you for that, Nick. Let's be positive, and talk about ideas. We can't change the people, but we can change the communication medium which can have a very big effect. I would like to brainstorm what features of a desired communication medium would have a positive impact on the discussion culture, and also on the ability of us, to find something like a consensus. Please, everyone, feel invited in this branch of this thread to give some input. I have some ideas myself so I will start with that, but in the next message. :-) Tobias On 25/05/2019 00:47, Nick Bolten 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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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
