Oof, sorry, I managed to discuss software despite your last message. Please disregard.
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:06 PM Nick Bolten <nbol...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the thesis (and it's so organized)! I give it a👌. > > I like the idea of using discourse - or at least something similarly > flexible and open. In discourse's case, it's all the same > language/framework as openstreetmap.org (rails), which might be a plus. > The ability to easily modify the platform would provide the opportunity to > create systematic improvements and funnel activism in productive directions. > > Example 1: One potential action item during/after a discussion should be > to update the wiki. A slightly ambitious dev could integrate discourse with > a ticketing system without too much effort. Someone's trying to build one > here already: https://github.com/angusmcleod/discourse-tickets. > > Example 2: You can use tags. This would help with some of the noise > inherent in the mailing list and make it easier to discover relevant past > discussions. > > Best, > > Nick > > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:29 PM Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> 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
