[Osmf-talk] [HOT] [hotosm-membership] Re: Code of Conduct Reminder

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Hi, Pete:

Yes, I forgot to say my opinion about the user who said he was 
unsubscribing.

In my opinion, it's childish to quit an open forum, where anyone can 
subscribe, just because somebody says something you don't like. 
Specially when you see already some people telling you that no one can 
control what others have to say.

If it was me, I would say it politely, like "I think not having a tool 
to create squared buildings in iD is a pity, because if we had, more 
squared buildings would be mapped". But what I, you or Dale think about 
politeness is something that depend on many factors, the most important 
of them cultural. Believe me when I tell you that I didn't find it 
unpolite, and it passed unadverted to me.

We, the overall OSM community, are very gentle and pacific in general, 
so we can govern ourselves without the need of any CoC. All this thread 
tells me very clear how negative a CoC in OSM lists would be.

Are we confortable with that? We can tell him things similar to those 
that others said already to him, in the way "what one person says, 
whether you don't like it, is what one person says, but not what the 
rest thinks. And maybe he wasn't meaning that he hates you, but he hates 
that you iD devs don't have a building tool like JOSM". There are ways 
to say the same better and more clear. But what I am clearly against is 
to put him under the foot of a CoC. Only the name, CoC, scares me a lot.

I hope I make me more clear now.

Cheers,

Rafael.

On 15/12/17 19:39, Pete Masters wrote:
> Hi Rafael, I see your point about the CoC and ownership of the list. But 
> that was only the third paragraph of Dale's email.
> 
> The fact remains that a person was told they are one of a hated group of 
> people and left the list. It's a loss. Are we comfortable with that? Is 
> it just the way it is and everyone has to live with it?
> 
> Personally, I am not comfortable with it and welcome further discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Dec 2017 18:24, "Rafael Avila Coya" <ravilacoya at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ravilacoya at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, Dan:
> 
>     The thing here is that hot at openstreetmap.org
>     <mailto:hot at openstreetmap.org> is, as far as I know, an OSM mailing
>     list, not HOT US inc.'s. I would find it weard that another OSM
>     mailing list was governed by the Red Cross, and that talk-es was
>     governed by the Spanish Government, for example.
> 
>     Cheers,
> 
>     Rafael.
> 
>     On 15/12/17 19:11, Dan S wrote:
> 
>         Hi
> 
>         It does seem to me that more clarity would be good here, i.e.
>         slightly
>         disentangling the lines of accountability regarding the hot@ mailing
>         list.
> 
>         Mikel's response has logical sense, but it's probably not clear
>         to the
>         average participant in the hot@ mailing list whether they are
>         automatically made a part of the HOT community. Whether the best
>         clarification is to have two mailing lists, or for the info page
>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>> to make clear
>         whether
>         it is in general governed by HOT's rules, I don't know.
> 
>         Best
>         Dan
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     HOT mailing list
>     HOT at openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>
>