[Osmf-talk] Proposal - OSMF Should **NOT** Adopt a Code of Conduct

Emily Eros emily.eros at gmail.com
Mon Dec 4 01:31:26 UTC 2017


Hi again,

I think most of the questions for me have been answered by others, so I'm
not sure this is needed - but for the sake of speaking for myself:

Can you pls. point to a mailing list post where you experienced
hostility and personal tensions?
And if yes, I'd like to see if and why any CoC would have helped.

-  As Ian suggests, I find it impossible not to notice personal tensions on
this list over the past week or so. I think this misses the point, though.
My point is answering the question of "Are there people who don't feel
comfortable in this space". My answer is yes and that I don't think this
viewpoint should be dismissed, especially by people who contribute more
regularly and seem more comfortable in this space (and are almost all
male), and thus may not be able to relate to how other OSMF members
experience the mailing list.

In terms of being asked for more info in the first place: I certainly don't
mind clarifying, although I think it misses the point. Instead of having to
qualify and explain this, I would hope people would read that and consider
that perhaps there is more substance than they'd previously considered to
the idea that "this mailing list does not feel like a safe space for some
people". Would a CoC solve this? I'm not an expert and I don't think
there's a way to guarantee that. But I personally would appreciate some
sort of reference point (I don't really care what it's named) about what we
as a community strive for in our communications and what I can expect /
shouldn't have to expect by voicing my opinions. Can a member say anything
they like about me personally and attribute it to a cultural difference? If
so, I'm out. Should community standards be reasonable so that community
standards aren't a way to persecute or silence people? Of course. I think
there's a way to do both and that we should work towards this.

I don't mean to speak for Emily, but it's clear that some people post more,
use stronger language, and nitpick others' points more than others. I can
see how that might be taken to mean "loudest".

- This is exactly what I mean by the "louder" voices - sorry if that wasn't
clear. There are a handful of members (almost all male) having this
conversation and most other members are silent, as Leslie notes as well.

Thanks everyone,
Emily

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Kai Krueger <kakrueger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 12/3/17 4:31 PM, Joseph Reeves wrote:
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Again, I said that I didn't think your email was in violation of a
> potential CoC, I said that it would potentially have a chilling effect.
>
> In my opinion, the mistake you've made is to take a post about the
> atmosphere of a mailing list and to think that this is the sort of thing
> that would be subject to a CoC procedure.
>
> Is this indeed common consensus? I.e. that statements in the CoC like "be
> kind" or "be respectful" do not apply to arguments that "have a chilling
> effect" and "make people uncomfortable" or "disengage from the community"?
> If that is indeed consensus, I suspect that would alleviate some of the
> fears by those who worry that a CoC could end up stiefeling honest but
> (perhaps overly) passionate debates. But then how could we codify that in
> the language of the CoC to ensure that indeed it can't be used in these
> situations?
>
> And if indeed the CoC isn't there to protect people who feel uncomfortable
> within an aggressive intellectual argument, then what does protect people
> from it and ensure that their voice is respected even if they decide not to
> participate in a hugely long email thread?
>
> Could perhaps having more community surveys be one solution? I.e. for
> example on the topic of CoC. The argument pro and con can continue on the
> mailing list for those who wish to continue and those who wish to disengage
> can ignore the topic. At the same time OSMF creates a member survey asking
> "Do you favour a CoC: Yes/No", who's results are only recorded anonymously.
> So hopefully everyone feels safe to answer their true believes and the
> membership's opinion is recorded more accurately than by counting how many
> emails were sent.
>
> Another solution, as has already been proposed, perhaps is to have
> separate email lists. There is the osmf-announce list, which every osmf
> member gets subscribed to and only contains actual announcements, and the
> occasional information cross reference of "There is a discussion about CoC
> on the osmf-talk, if you you want to participate or read up about it, then
> subscribe to osmf-talk. If you feel uncomfortable with the intensity of the
> argument, then here are the other options of expressing your opinion or
> getting a condensed summary"
>
>
> The original question was "Some people feel frightened to participate in
> mailing lists?"
>
> And Emily answered "yes": Pressing someone to explain their feelings,
> whilst asking them for specifics that we'd apply a hypothetical CoC to, is
> not encouraging participation.
>
> Imho, this is a little more complex. Obviously everyone is entitled to
> their feelings and no, if they don't want to, they don't need to justify
> them. However, if we want to find solutions and compromises to problems,
> then yes, imho we do need to understand and probe the specifics. I.e.
> understand what does and does not make one feel un/comfortable. If we
> changed something, would that help or hurt? Are there ways of how to help
> make you less frightened to participate? What are the down sides? Are those
> downsides in the end acceptable to the community?
>
> This is not necessarily a pleasant process, particularly to those who were
> on the uncomfortable side to start with. But imho in the end, on a policy
> debate level somewhat necessary and thus we shouldn't prevent uncomfortable
> expressions of opinions.
>
> Kai
>
>
> Cheers, Joseph
>
>
>
> On 3 December 2017 at 23:11, Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joseph
>>
>> > 2017-12-03 23:56 GMT+01:00 Joseph Reeves <iknowjoseph at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Now I'm feeling stifled :-(!
>> But it's worth to observe how "mechanisms" of a CoC would be applied -
>> and how this conversation is being turned ad adsurdum!
>>
>> :Stefan
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-12-03 23:56 GMT+01:00 Joseph Reeves <iknowjoseph at gmail.com>:
>> > Hi Stefan,
>> >
>> > Arguably this email is an example of one that would stifle someone's
>> desire
>> > to speak freely. I'm not saying that I would consider it falling foul
>> of a
>> > CoC policy, but it's not a welcoming or inviting entry to further
>> > discussion.
>> >
>> > The argument goes that a CoC would have a chilling effect on mailing
>> list
>> > discussions, but to prevent this situation people are asked to cite
>> specific
>> > examples to defend their feelings; you can't create a chilling effect to
>> > protect your own perceived communication rights. In short, if somebody
>> > states how they feel, it's not OK to insist that they provide specific
>> > evidence for this feeling. Doing so is potentially stifling others and
>> > creates the chilling effect you are claiming to be working against.
>> >
>> > Look again at your email. Emily wrote:
>> >
>> >> but this space feels fraught with hostility and personal tensions
>> >> - some of which goes years back.
>> >
>> > In your response you asked for specific examples that Emily has
>> suffered:
>> >
>> >>Can you pls. point to a mailing list post where you experienced
>> >>hostility and personal tensions?
>> >
>> > Without doubt you will have seen hostility and personal tension on the
>> list
>> > over the last couple of weeks. It would be impossible not to see that.
>> But
>> > you've asked Emily for a specific instance relating to her. The point
>> is,
>> > the hostility and personal tension is discouraging to many people,
>> whether
>> > or not it was directed specifically, and personally, towards themselves.
>> > Asking for someone to point out a specific instance that they have
>> suffered
>> > abuse is not OK, misses the point of Community Standards, and only
>> threatens
>> > to worsen the situation.
>> >
>> > Joseph
>> >
>> > On 3 December 2017 at 22:24, Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Emily and Andrew
>> >>
>> >> 2017-12-03 23:06 GMT+01:00 Emily Eros <emily.eros at gmail.com>:
>> >> > but this space feels fraught with hostility and personal tensions
>> >> > - some of which goes years back.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for sharing your feelings.
>> >>
>> >> Can you pls. point to a mailing list post where you experienced
>> >> hostility and personal tensions?
>> >> And if yes, I'd like to see if and why any CoC would have helped.
>> >>
>> >> 2017-12-03 22:27 GMT+01:00 Andrew Matheny <andrewdmatheny at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > What I think is happening today is that new users sign up
>> >> > for the mailing lists, they see what is sent back and forth,
>> >> > and then they either disengage or unsubscribe.
>> >>
>> >> Can you pls. give some examples where this happened?
>> >>
>> >> I'm mainly aware of rather experienced mappers who habe been engaged
>> >> in disputes (as its happening in any online community).
>> >>
>> >> Would'nt a netiquette have handled that - perhaps reminded by others,
>> >> and finally by a moderator or OSMF group member?
>> >>
>> >> :Stefan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 2017-12-03 23:06 GMT+01:00 Emily Eros <emily.eros at gmail.com>:
>> >> > Hi all,
>> >> >
>> >> > As someone who generally doesn't participate in these mailing lists,
>> I
>> >> > very
>> >> > much disagree with this statement:
>> >> > "Some people feel frightened to participate in mailing lists? Well, I
>> >> > think
>> >> > it's very exaggerated and makes me smile in general."
>> >> >
>> >> > I can wholeheartedly say that YES, this is a space that I don't feel
>> >> > comfortable participating in. It's great to see people passionate
>> about
>> >> > OSM,
>> >> > but this space feels fraught with hostility and personal tensions -
>> some
>> >> > of
>> >> > which goes years back. It's easy to feel like saying something is
>> going
>> >> > to
>> >> > leave me feeling attacked. For me, I don't see an obvious way to
>> >> > contribute
>> >> > and try to make this better, so YES, it is very tempting to just
>> >> > disengage.
>> >> > I know I'm not alone in that, so I'd really encourage you to take it
>> >> > seriously when people say that they don't feel comfortable
>> contributing
>> >> > to
>> >> > the mailing lists.
>> >> >
>> >> > To me, it seems like all the loudest voices are the ones having this
>> >> > conversation. As someone who participates less, I can say that the
>> >> > existence
>> >> > of a CoC (carefully drafted, with community input and caution about
>> how
>> >> > to
>> >> > design this well) is something that would make me feel more
>> comfortable
>> >> > here.
>> >> >
>> >> > "In that context, and without any intention to offend anyone, I'd
>> give
>> >> > more
>> >> > value in this matter to the opinion of people who are more likely to
>> be
>> >> > the
>> >> > victims of harassment and abusive behavior, compared to the opinion
>> of
>> >> > white
>> >> > males who argue out of the safety of their privileged status."
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 to that, and thanks to Nikos for pointing it out.
>> >> >
>> >> > My two cents.
>> >> > Emily
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Nikos Roussos <comzeradd at fsfe.org>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I have more interesting things to do in life,
>> >> >> > like mapping for example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So you only do one interesting thing at a time? Please let's avoid
>> >> >> undervaluing what other people may find interesting.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Any code of conduct will make people more or less autocensure. I
>> >> >> > can't
>> >> >> > see any interest of having that thing, unless for control.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If a CoC make people to auto-censor from abusive behavior I'd say
>> it's
>> >> >> worth it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is a nice read on the value of a CoC in a community:
>> >> >> http://incisive.nu/2014/codes-of-conduct/
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For those who don't have the time to read it all a very good
>> argument
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> that "you aren’t creating a code of conduct only - or even
>> primarily -
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> the people who are likely to break it. You’re creating it to make it
>> >> >> clear
>> >> >> to anyone who has been harmed or harassed, online or off, that your
>> >> >> space is
>> >> >> safe for them."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In that context, and without any intention to offend anyone, I'd
>> give
>> >> >> more
>> >> >> value in this matter to the opinion of people who are more likely
>> to be
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> victims of harassment and abusive behavior, compared to the opinion
>> of
>> >> >> white
>> >> >> males who argue out of the safety of their privileged status.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> osmf-talk mailing list
>> >> >> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > osmf-talk mailing list
>> >> > osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> osmf-talk mailing list
>> >> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171203/28463f05/attachment.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list