[Osmf-talk] Commitment to open communication channels

[Simon Poole]

Am 19.08.2020 um 02:54 schrieb Allan Mustard:
>
> Not to pile on, but in my conversations with local communities, more
> than a few said they avoid the talk lists because of the incivility
> and rudeness.  What constitutes obnoxious behavior varies by culture,
> and insensitivity to what another culture considers rude drives
> members of that culture away.  OSM allows this to happen at its peril,
> since OSM strives to be a "map of the world".
>
> Or to be more blunt, what is inoffensive and merely clever, sarcastic
> repartee to a western European may be highly offensive to an Asian,
> African, or Latin American, who will then bail out and not participate
> in that comms channel.
>
If the goal is zero cultural friction, the path to get there is going to
be zero public debate.

That is certainly actionable, but will result in even more of the
important discussions moving to back channels and even more power to
those who are skilful in operating them. 

Simon

> If you want proof of that, contact the local communities and ask them
> yourself.
>
> cheers,
> apm
>
> On 8/18/2020 3:22 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 2020, at 11:45 AM, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk
>>> <osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     I believe it is as safe as any other channel and abuse is very rare.
>>>     Try to find 2 examples from this year of non acceptable
>>>     communication, and if you cannot, let’s reflect how “toxic” this
>>>     list really is. From my perception, people spreading the myth of
>>>     toxicity on OpenStreetMap mailing lists are behaving more
>>>     toxically than all the communications I have seen on various
>>>     OpenStreetMap mailing lists in 12 years. Disclaimer: I am not on
>>>     talk-us, maybe this list is an exception I am not aware of.
>>>     I do recall two events of unpleasant communication, in both
>>>     cases I believe that personal discourses from
>>>     the real life had moved to the lists (one was on the diversity
>>>     list, the other was a flame against you before the elections I
>>>     think 2 years ago).
>>>
>>>
>>> Martin, don't you think it would only increase the toxicity on this
>>> list for people to start calling out by name other people that they
>>> think are toxic or abusive? And if people already don't feel safe on
>>> this list, why in the world would they feel safe publicly calling
>>> out others' behaviors? I am not saying this is your intent, but your
>>> challenge could serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy: Tell people
>>> that they will not be believed, and they will be unlikely to speak
>>> up, and then you'll have your "proof" that there is no toxicity.
>>> I will say that at least three people (a mix of genders) have
>>> personally told me that they do not participate in/read the talk
>>> listserv because of the culture, and this is not exactly something
>>> that comes up in every conversation I have about OSM.
>>> We can all have different opinions on what qualifies as "toxic", but
>>> I think that I would prefer "welcoming" to "not that toxic that
>>> often," which is what it sounds like you are describing as the
>>> standard for "any other channel." I think that is too low of a bar
>>> and that OSM should aim for better.
>>
>> I agree with this viewpoint.
>>
>> Asking people to prove instances of toxicity is not a helpful way to
>> engage this topic. I’d like to re-surface Ivan Gayton’s excellent
>> points on this topic from late last year, on OSM diaries:
>>
>>> “I have failed to notice any outrageous problems” does not come off
>>> exactly like an invitation to share the problems, it’s more of a
>>> challenge, implicitly saying “prove it,” putting the onus on the
>>> person experiencing the hostility to demonstrate that they are not
>>> imagining it. A lot of people, rather than investing in this, will
>>> simply find another place to put their energy where they are not
>>> required to endure hostility or prove its existence in the face of
>>> skepticism.
>>>
>>> It might be instructive to re-read that mailing list while
>>> specifically keeping in mind the potential experience of, say, a
>>> female participant.
>>>
>>> Better yet, if you want to discover whether women (or people of
>>> color, or LGTBQ people, or people from low-income countries, or
>>> other folks less represented in global wealth and power) are
>>> experiencing hostility, a good way to do so is to ask them. As
>>> opposed to asking them to prove it.
>>
>> –
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Heather%20Leson/diary/391598#comment46229
>>
>> A recent Ford & Sloan Foundation report on open source communities
>> (https://recommendations.implicit-development.org) repeatedly
>> emphasizes the point that understanding a community’s dynamic
>> requires active outreach to *people who’ve chosen to leave*. Looking
>> to just the hardy extremophiles content to stick around will not tell
>> enough of the story.
>>
>> -mike.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200819/d8f517a2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200819/d8f517a2/attachment.sig>