[diversity-talk] The recent unpleasantness

Sun Dec 7 09:41:18 UTC 2014

Hi Tom and Melelani,

you two raise similar points, so let me answer them together.

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 02:48:12PM -0500, Tom MacWright wrote:
> "There are bigger problems to be solved" is true for every problem. Writing
> a CoC is the problem we're trying to solve, in this thread, on this list,
> right now.

> Is the problem that this was the wrong level of punishment, or that
> moderation in itself is not welcome?

Neither. My problem is that the judgement was applied in an unbalanced way.
What I saw was two people bringing their private little feud onto this
mailing list. They were both rude, they were both out of line. I can even
see a point when the moderation argues that it was a repeated offence.
But again, that applies to both parties. A moderate reaction in such
a case is that moderation closes the thread with a general statement of
what has been done wrong (e.g. "be reminded that private wars don't belong
on the mailing list") and sanctioned the parties involved equally.
Moderation chose to sanction only one side, without adequately explaining
why different messures were applied.

> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Melelani Sax-Barnett <saxbarm at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > And to your other point, yes, absolutely we need to reach out more. But I
> > think both are equally important -- it doesn't matter how hard you work
> > convincing people to join your community if you plop them right down in the
> > middle of a toxic environment. They're going to try to remain anonymous in
> > their participation if they stay at all.

First of all, OSM never has had a problem with anonymous participation. It's 
our long tail that makes the map as detailed as it is. Second, I'm still
missing proof that indeed the communication style is the main reason that
people stay away. I certainly can say that it is not the reason for me to
keep my participation in mailing lists low. So you might actually be working
on a solution for a problem that is not as severe as you might think.

I really liked Alyssa's talk at SOTM-US 2012. Analysing the communication
behaviour on the mailing lists with statistical methods seemed such a wonderful
idea. Unfortunately, the talk stop right at the point after counting
participation and failed to go into acutal communication behaviour. If there
was a follow up, I failed to notice it.

Also remember that the definition of toxic environment is not the same for
every culture because every culture has its own traditions when it comes
to social interaction. The OSM community is very diverse already and we deal
with these issues every day, sometimes well, sometimes less good. I think
the CoCs could benefit a lot from this experience. Ironically, the contributors
to the current CoCs seem to be almost exclusively North-American.

Sarah

> >
> > Just my thoughts.
> > Mele
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:46 AM, Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> sorry for warming up this discussion just when everybody has cooled down,
> >> but something about this whole incident keeps bothering me.
> >>
> >> Imagine that the situation at hand would have been slightly different,
> >> imagine it would have played out like this (purely hypothetical of
> >> course):
> >>
> >>  Serge, in a thread about childcare, makes a thoughtless, humorously meant
> >>  side-mark that is quite a bit derogative to women. Alyssa, having had a
> >>  bad day (don't we all have those), replies with an angry mail, stating
> >>  that this was the worst insult she has ever heard and that he should be
> >>  ashamed of himself. Serge immediately replies that she has always been an
> >>  asshole and that he doesn't talk to people like her.
> >>
> >> Would the moderation have banned Alyssa in this situation? Would the
> >> others
> >> on this list have been so ready to defend Serge's reaction or would it
> >> have
> >> been more likely that it still would have been Serge who would have ended
> >> up being reprimanded for using swear words?
> >>
> >> Consider this more of a rhetorical question but it highlights what has
> >> been
> >> bothering me about the entire diversity debate since very much the
> >> beginning.
> >> There seems to be too little discussion on how to correct the skewed
> >> proportions
> >> in the distribution of mappers. Instead everything seems focused on the
> >> protection of minorities, rather euphemistically called creating a safe
> >> place,
> >> and finger pointing. I find that dangerous on many levels.
> >>
> >> First of all, invoking protection is not the same as showing respect and
> >> interest in minority groups. Protectors always have a certain self-
> >> interest, may that be a commercial interest or just the goal of feeling
> >> better about themselves by seemingly helping the helpless. And that
> >> carries
> >> the danger that protection becomes misguided.  In the case of gender
> >> diversity this has gone so far that the whole discussion is now focussed
> >> on the argument that woman need protection. Basically, this is just
> >> playing on
> >> the same old stereotype that woman are weak and cannot defend themselves.
> >> I find that annoying and derogative. To me, it's nothing but chauvinism
> >> in disguise. This thread is a classic example. The general consensus
> >> seems to be that Alyssa can be forgiven because she needs her safe space
> >> while Serge can handle a decent beating and doesn't need respect or
> >> forgiveness.
> >>
> >> The second problem is that protectionism wants to justify itself. To that
> >> end
> >> here on this list (following the lead of the geek feminism discussions)
> >> it has been repeatedly encouraged to find and call out offense in all
> >> human social interactions. While it indeed can help to rise awareness
> >> to certain misguided social conventions, it has it's dangers because it
> >> tends
> >> to make huge issues out of small blunders. It's exactly what has happened
> >> in the last two days on this list. Personally, I'm more for "don't
> >> take offense where none is meant". But that might be cultural. If you
> >> want offense to be pointed out, then you absolutely must first have
> >> mechanisms in place to deal with it objectively. This list has obviously
> >> no such mechanism as it has simply banned somebody for pointing
> >> out such an offense. (As, at the same time, you seem perfectly happy with
> >> people calling each other names, it makes no sense to pretend that Serge
> >> was banned for the tone of his message.)
> >>
> >> Third, there is an inherent prejudgement of the majority groups here,
> >> in particular in the harassment debates. Voicing disagreement is
> >> frequently
> >> taken to be synonymous to trolling or harassment. If you are male, your
> >> words
> >> are taken to be sexist. If you are straight, you must be homophobic etc.
> >> I'm exaggerating a bit but that is what the current atmosphere feels like
> >> to me. The result is that members of the majority groups prefer to
> >> shut up and gather in smaller groups among themselves where they are
> >> free of such prejudgement. It's exactly the opposite of what a diversity
> >> debate should result in.
> >>
> >> A final remark: there is a good reason I haven't joined this list before
> >> today. I had the intent to do so about two weeks after it was founded.
> >> Looking through the archives before finishing the subscription process,
> >> the first message I came upon was a mail from Alyssa rallying up support
> >> against another NYC mapper whom she had some personal disagreement with.
> >> I didn't know who it was at the time but that wasn't important anyway.
> >> To me the message had every aspect of a mobbing campaign. It did not
> >> fill me with confidence that this list is a safe place to speak your
> >> mind freely. So I walked away.
> >>
> >> My opinion has not improved since then, so it's unlikely that I will stay.
> >> If you are truly interested in improving diversity, I strongly suggest
> >> that
> >> you go out meet the people you want to draw in, understand what their
> >> interests are and what would attract them to participate in OpenStreetMap.
> >> Then go to the people who are already part of OSM, talk to them and
> >> understand what makes them tick. Listen, then listen, and finally
> >> listen some more. Only then will it be possible to come up
> >> with a strategy on how you can bring them together. Please stop focussing
> >> solely on which people to shut out.
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> Sarah
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> diversity-talk mailing list
> >> diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > diversity-talk mailing list
> > diversity-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/diversity-talk
> >
> >