[Osmf-talk] Clarification on how "Proposed draft policy on project-wide suspensions and bans" would be implemented Re: Next OSMF board meeting on Thursday 28 September 2023, at 15:00 UTC

[Emerson Rocha]

First, I can't imagine any strong examples where OpenStreetMap mappers
blocked from editing the data (e.g. DWG long time block) have personal
motivation to either use the Wiki or communication channels. DWG uses
mostly public communication, and unless redaction is involved, even
complaining in public about punishment on editing osm data can easily
lead to people not from DWG defend the blocks when using other OSMF
sponsored channels (or the person using these channels might make
Etiquette violations). So in practice I'm assuming we're talking about
the inverse case, where something based on the less objective
Etiquette (and the fairly new moderation committee) can impact the
account on openstreetmap.org.

> > With this context, the "Proposed draft policy on project-wide
> > suspensions and bans" resembles what would be an actionable point to
> > allow parts of the heavily criticized 2023-04 version (but which
> > aren't on the Strategy Plan 2023-09 version), and is not clear if by
> > topics of the next minute if this will be decided without any mappers
> feedback as if was something with minor impact.
>
>
> I'm very confused by what you're talking about, since none of the
> Cluster B tasks were about when users banned from one channel have their
> ban extended globally. In addition, as the minutes say, the proposed
> policy originated from moderators, not the board.

Well, even if not formalized initially on the new Etiquette Guidelines
for osmf-talk and forums, on on private communication about suspension
for something, a person could receive an warning that further
violations of Etiquette *on the forum* could also mean sent "a
recommendation will be sent to the Data Working Group that you be
banned from participation in OpenStreetMap.". This is why the idea of
"global suspension" is not something new, but until now, it would not
be automatic (e.g. DWG would need to still decide, not merely be
subject of outside decision from another working group which is not
even OSMF). I'm just saying for context (not saying it could not be
argued).

The Cluster B (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Cluster_B), which most
part is not anymore on the current OSMF Strategy plan, had references
such as the "Task B403: Address cultural barriers / Action: The Board
will appoint moderators to the talk list moderation team who are
sensitive to cross-cultural differences and who are able to defuse
situations and, in severe cases, to intervene forcefully. (sic)" To
this I would add the following:

1. Eight out of nine documented cases of moderation activity are about
sanctioning non-native English speakers for communication activities
in English language. And the recent case of global ban was actually
the native English speaker.
2. The person on the recent 1-year global ban was really not a regular
case to be used as reference to justify any state of exception. In
addition to Discourse, not sure about his changeset comments or his
behavior as mapper, but even woodpeck (which I think most people would
assume is forgiving about what others say) actually edited personal
attacks from him against others on OSM diaries. I mean, this 1-year
ban could happen even before the new Etiquette.

So, yes, I do believe the OSMF board, regardless of this started from
the moderators, should not implement such a policy without
consultation with the mappers: because they are the ones affected
(some demography more than others; the language seems related). Even
without this, any global level ban could still be done on a case by
case level, not something trivial or automatic, so there's no reason
or need to make it urgent.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 12:04 AM Paul Norman
<paul.norman at osmfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-09-25 4:09 p.m., Emerson Rocha via osmf-talk wrote:
> > On the "Proposed draft policy on project-wide suspensions and bans" I
> > have an open question for the OSMF board of directors: will such kind
> > of policy be approved as a mere board decision, without consulting the
> > mappers themselves with plenty of time to feedback?
>
> Past policies that apply to the OSMF, not mappers, and limit when the
> OSMF can ban users were discussed among those who they applied to, not a
> general consultation. For example, the Ban Policy
> (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy) was discussed among the DWG,
> because it limited the DWG.
>
> > With this context, the "Proposed draft policy on project-wide
> > suspensions and bans" resembles what would be an actionable point to
> > allow parts of the heavily criticized 2023-04 version (but which
> > aren't on the Strategy Plan 2023-09 version), and is not clear if by
> > topics of the next minute if this will be decided without any mappers
> > feedback as if was something with minor impact.
>
>
> I'm very confused by what you're talking about, since none of the
> Cluster B tasks were about when users banned from one channel have their
> ban extended globally. In addition, as the minutes say, the proposed
> policy originated from moderators, not the board.
>
> I'm not sure why the policy isn't linked from the board minutes, but
> don't know how the document was circulated to the board.
>


-- 
Emerson Rocha
Full stack developer at Alligo
Transdisciplinary researcher at Etica.AI
Member of  The IEEE Special Interest Group on Humanitarian Technology
(IEEE SIGHT)
Member of The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and
Intelligent Systems