[Tagging] This list requires moderation

[Simon Poole]

See
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-June/045873.html
given that in the mean time any notion of voluntary restraint seems to
have vanished, I'm not very optimistic about any such call for moderation.

We have individuals posting multiple 100s of messages to tagging alone
per month (not even touching on the total number of posts over all
channels), which would seem to simply be outside of any reasonable use
of the list.

Simon

Am 07.02.2021 um 13:10 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> I've chosen a somewhat cheeky subject on purpose. I don't mean to say
> that this list requires a moderator, or that people on this list are
> impolite and offensive and all that stuff - on the contrary, this
> mailing list is a place where discussions are generally factual and we
> don't have trolls, abuse, bigotry, or any of that.
>
> What I am calling for is moderation in the sense of restraint, or (a
> definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) "observing reasonable
> limits".
>
> Discussions about tagging are important for OSM, and it is good that
> they are being held here on an open mailing list. It is also good that
> we are actually discussing and not just upvoting and downvoting. I don't
> want to change any of that.
>
> But the sheer volume of discussion is making it difficult for many to
> follow the debates. And let's be honest: About 75% of the discussion
> could be cut if we applied a little bit of ... moderation.
>
> Things that I see too often:
>
> * Repetition of one's own arguments. If you say something, and someone
> else opposes that, simply let it stand. You have said your thing, the
> other guy has said their thing, you don't need to say "but I still think
> that" and then repeat everything in other words.
>
> * Repetition of someone else's arguments in different words. All too
> often we have five people essentially saying the same thing in slightly
> different words. Everyone believes that the other person has got it
> *almost* right but they want to add one tiny bit, or stress another
> aspect, and boom, there goes a new three-page essay.
>
> * Quick-fire responses. One person writes something, and three others
> reply immediately, without having fully read or understood the other
> responses, leading to a broad overlap between responses. If people were
> willing to wait a little longer, maybe they could do away with their
> response altogether because someone else has already said it.
>
> * Mistaking the list for a voting platform - while it is important to
> gauge what the community opinion is, if one person says something and
> three others have opposed, then it is not necessary to add a fourth,
> fifth, and sixth opposing voice. Three against is clear enough.
>
> * Wanting to comment on everything - there's a few people here who seem
> to see it as their responsibility to participate in every single thread.
> I've been there, done that. Nowadays I still read all the threads, and I
> ask myself: Is this an emergency where people will do something really
> bad if I don't join the discussion and try to steer them away? If it
> isn't, then I try to remain silent on that topic even if (!) I think
> that people are maybe overlooking a minor detail or the discussion isn't
> going exactly as I would like it.
>
> Before you post to this mailing list, remember that every single post
> uses some bandwidth, and bandwidth is limited. The more bandwidth is
> wasted on unnecessary "I 99% agree but there's this one little thing
> that I feel I need to write three pages about", the less bandwidth
> remains for the important stuff. And a high-bandwidth mailing list
> presents a higher hurdle for participation, so the more unnecessary
> words we make, the fewer people will be willing and able to participate.
>
> Before you post, ask yourself: Does what I have to say really have an
> impact? Is what I am about to write something that the 100s of readers
> of this list need to read?
>
> Set yourself reasonable limits; think about how you can help us all to
> save bandwidth. For example such limits could be "don't send more than
> one message per day on average", or "try to make it a habit to reply to
> things on the next day, rather than on the same day - unless your reply
> has already been made redundant by then".
>
> I think this mailing list is important and good work is being done here,
> and I want to keep it functioning. Hence this call for "moderation", in
> the sense of "observing reasonable limits". Your help is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>