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

Rafael Avila Coya ravilacoya at gmail.com
Fri Dec 15 22:27:24 UTC 2017


Hi, Dale:

My comments inline.

On 15/12/17 20:41, Dale Kunce wrote:
> Rafael,
> Saying things like "x is childish" is not in keeping with good manners.

Maybe not with your own, cultural, manners. It's ok for me. That's what 
I thought when I read his email. Honestly.

> 
> I think the larger point is that this space is not "gentle."

Not gentle for you. Not for everybody.


> We clearly 
> need a CoC or at the very least to enforce the rules we (OSM) already 
> have in place. OSM is not so special from every other internet 
> community. Most software projects, data projects, and even media 
> companies have open CoC and expectations for how you behave in there 
> space. OSM is not unique, we need to set clear expectations about how to 
> act in this space.

"CoC at the very least", no less.

Enforce... yes, always enforce.

Software projects, data projects and media are different. I refer you to 
Christoff Hoffmann's emails, where he explains you clearly why OSM is 
not comparable to those.

And how do you think we have to behave in OSM? Not only me. Africans, 
Asians, Southamericans... That won't lead anywhere, I assure you.

> 
> Is it so hard for people to be nice to one another?

No. It isn't really. I use to make that effort since back to 1991, not 
always with success. Human beings are not perfect. But human beings 
usually like freedom, including speech.

> I think it behoves 
> everyone in this community to make the affirmation of being nice to one 
> another the same way we all made the commitment to the ODBL.

ODbL and freedom of speech in the same tense. Really? The first is law; 
the second is something we don't need legally (nor morally nor practically).

> I think it 
> behoves us all to call out bad behavior when we see it.

Again: what is bad behaviour. Some people here don't see bad behaviour 
in Ralf's email. Some others do. I respect fully both of the "groups".

> Keep others 
> honest and on topic not through enforcing a CoC but through the 
> accepting the rules outlined in the CoC or etiquette guidelines.

I have already said that etiquette guidelines are that: guidelines. I 
haven't seen them enforced yet, and I would like to know who would 
enforce them, and with what mandate.

Respectfully,

Rafael.

> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Rafael Avila Coya 
> <ravilacoya at gmail.com <mailto:ravilacoya at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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> <mailto: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>
>              <mailto: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>
>                  <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>
>         <mailto:HOT at openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT at openstreetmap.org>>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>
>              <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>>
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     HOT mailing list
>     HOT at openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> sent from my mobile device
> 
> Dale Kunce
> http://normalhabit.com
> 



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list