[Osmf-talk] Quality of discourse

[Allan Mustard]

Yes, there are Etiquette Guidelines [1], a Process for Moderation [2], 
Moderation Team Guidelines [3], and even moderators [4].

Now, among the guidelines are a specific rule to avoid ad hominem[5] 
attacks: "Disrespect towards individuals, such as bullying, retaliation, 
personal insults, innuendo, edit shaming, or deliberate use of rejected 
name (deadnaming)."

The moderators are following the AGM election thread and see it verging 
on mere bickering salted heavily with ad hominem attacks. We urge all of 
you to exercise restraint, to be polite, and to focus on the problem at 
hand, and not on personalities. Starting now. Right now.

For the moderators,
Allan Mustard

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette/Etiquette_Guidelines
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette/Process_for_Moderation
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Etiquette/Moderation_Team_Guidelines
[4] 
https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Moderation_team_for_talk_and_osmf-talk_mailing_lists#Members
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 04:25:59 +0530 (GMT+05:30)
> From: Kashish<contrapunctus at disroot.org>
> To:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Osmf-talk] Quality of discourse
> Message-ID:<c5fddcc2-a9e1-4cdb-84d5-5656f04fad53 at disroot.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> In another thread, a member expressed annoyance with the tone of discussions. And ever since the AGM thread began, I've been feeling the same way - that a big factor that kills my interest in keeping up with OSMF affairs is the constant passive-aggressiveness and assumptions of ill-intent or ineptitude that pervade these discussions.
>
> It's only an odd one or two members who do so, but they ruin the environment for everyone. If increasing participation in the OSMF is a desired goal, this must be tackled.
>
> Are there no guidelines for discourse in this forum?
> If they are, are they enforced?
>
> The same members are also involved in mischaracterizing things so consistently that it seems all but intentional. Are there no rules against that?
>
> PS - I would also like something like Twitter's Community Notes, which refute misinformation right next to where it occurs, with fewer chances of being missed. But that will probably require engineering effort, which is in short supply.