Sorry in hindsight I should have left out the last paragraph, please ignore it. I would rather not discuss concrete suggestions for software but collect ideas for certain modes of communications that may make constructive communication happen more.
On 25/05/2019 02:28, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a > culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they tend towards > not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want to litter the > conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, as someone posing > a topic that does not develop into a long thread (like this one), you never > know if it was due to that nobody is interested, or if everyone is like "ok > sounds good". > Now, what we actually want to achieve when starting a discussion on the > mailing list or forums to get so some kind of result with which all or most > people are actually fine with, to a consent. > > 1.1 A Solution: In real life, if you agree but have nothing more to say, you > simply show that by nodding or clapping. While, if you don't, you voice this > and state your reasons. So, I think simply a 👌 "sounds good" button, aka 👍 > "like" (facebook) or 👏 "clap" (medium.com) will make a big difference. (Did > you know that a "thanks" button was introduced in our wiki recently? Use it!) > This will make it much easier also for people who usually just lurk on the > mailing list and don't feel they want to actively participate in the > discussion to give the people who write some feedback. > > 2. Get more "normies" on board. I think it can only be good for the overall > communication culture to get more people on board. > > 2.1 Linked from the main page. Was already mentioned before in this thread > somewhere - the communication medium should be linked directly from the > openstreetmap.org start page to get more people on board. See for example > https://kotlinlang.org/community/ on how it could look like > > 2.2. OAuth. Users should simply be able to use their openstreetmap login, no > further registration required. > > 3. Moderation and Edits. > > 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are all > humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you > shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important. > > 3.2 Report: And sometimes, a person will just not cool down and fail to see > that he is being abusive, then this needs to be moderated in order to keep > the discussion factual. An abusive comment on the mailing list will stay > forever, while one on a well moderated medium will only be seen by those that > see it before it is reported. Having an abusive comment just stay there, even > if it is rebuked, broadcasts a nasty odor and poisons the discussion. This is > the "toxicity" that pops up time and again here. Don't underestimate > emotions. Just remember how this discussion here started ( > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045501.html ). So, > my conclusion, *good* moderation is most important really. > > 3.3 Moderation: Sometimes discussions go off topic or branch off. Especially > if using a threaded forum or a mailing list. Then, it should be possible to > put those branches into own threads. > > 3.x All three are not possible on a mailing list, but at least in the forum. > > All those points I mentioned are nothing new or outrageous. Any modern > conversation software will have all of this. > > For example F-Droid (Android OpenSource Software Repository) and Kotlin > (modern programming language) both use Discourse. Could this be an option to > replace both the mailing lists and the forums? https://www.discourse.org/ > > I am talking about replace here, because one part of the problem is, is that > the community is so scattered ("filter bubbles"). > On 25/05/2019 01:43, Tobias Zwick wrote: >>> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
