<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Verdana">Most of this first draft seems a huge and
very appreciated improvement to the existing Etiquette
guidelines.<br>
I still see some major issues:</font></p>
<ol>
<li><font face="Verdana"><b>Absence of our core purpose, mapping.
<br>
</b>Derogatory comments on individual or groups mapping
practices, like f.i. micromapping, 3D mapping, landcover,
individual trees etc... are not mentioned as unwanted or
exclusive behaviour. Justifications to vote against, revert
changes or block guidelines are as discriminating and
exclusive as other "socially motivated" etiquette. Same for
promoting or lobbying practices with the opposite purpose to
prove ones influence or dominance.<br>
<br>
</font></li>
<li><b>"Effective communication</b>. Stay on topic and be
concise."<br>
Speaking from my own habits, being concise can have a very broad
interpretation. Higher educated native English speakers have a
broad vocabulary or jargon to express their ideas and views,
effective and short in their communication. Less proficient
English speakers, even anyone not experienced in public
conversations might not be able to be concise. This doesn't mean
we should allow whole books being written on our mailing list,
but we should better define some kind of threshold or directive
what concise means. Not allowing long(er) views or responses,
enabling someone to make their point more clear but on topic, is
an example of open and inclusive communication. Neglecting,
being unresponsive or prohibiting communication because it is
not concise in ones personal or a committees view is as much
exclusive as other unwanted behaviour.<br>
I propose to keep this statement more open as f.i. "Stay on
topic. Try to be as concise as possible, but feel comfortable
and appropriate to make your point, without dominating. Limit
your responses, avoid repetition and allow or assist others to
summarize your point(s)."<br>
<br>
</li>
<li><font face="Verdana"><b>Local diversity, culture and "street
language". <br>
</b>The etiquette is presented as being globally applicable.
What we forget however is the local context. Every response
and communication has to be understood and tested with the
originators background or the context or space where the
conversation takes place. The local context where it is used.
<br>
F.i. calling someone a nigger is very abusive and racist from
a non coloured unfamiliar person to a coloured person. However
within a community might be an expression, commonly used, of
familiarity and close friendship, bonding as in the same
social position.<br>
Another example f.i. "third world" or "developing countries",
"poor countries" when referring to communities with other
social, cultural or economical values. An African might call a
North American "poor" as in his cultural inheritance, social
local micro community behaviour and non predetermined
solidarity. However, an aid provider or donator, as referring
to economical or financial global significance of African
communities uses "poor" in a much different context, justified
if the context in which he uses these terms is made clear.<br>
This might seem not a major point for the initially targetted
mailing lists. However can become a major issue as we expand
to other mailing lists and popular communication channels, and
not to forget local chapters.<br>
<br>
</font></li>
<li><font face="Verdana"><b>Behavior That Will Not Be Tolerated</b><br>
Does not belong in a comprehensive and general etiquette or
code of conduct. Leave it out and up to the moderation team to
list a non exhaustive list of examples. Prevent jargon or non
generally known terms, both as to describe negative behaviour
but also to prevent focus on specific groups to promote their
issues or acceptance.</font></li>
</ol>
<p><font face="Verdana">Regards and respect to all of you,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali<br>
</font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>