[Talk-us] Difficult USA mapper(s)

Richard Weait richard at weait.com
Wed Oct 31 19:28:36 GMT 2012

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:

> We need to stop talking in nebulous terms. "the complaints here" are
> apparently unknown to everyone. If it's not appropriate to describe the
> specific issues, then perhaps we shouldn't be having this conversation on
> the mailing list.

I would prefer to discuss this in general, and in the open.  Firstly,
open is good.  Secondly, we're seeking guidelines for use now and in
the future.

I do understand where you are coming from though.  Yes, I think
"praise in public, criticize in private" is the way to go in general.
However, that hasn't worked in these current cases.  Again, we've had
_many_ complaints about these very few accounts.  If you haven't seen
something like this?  Good.  You are better for it.

As Dale suggests in his point 1), if one mapper takes the high road
and decides not to change a disputed edit, but to discuss instead,
then the other mapper can effectively "game the system".  They can not
engage, or not change their mind and effectively get what they want,
without consultation or collaborative mapping.  Rest assured that the
difficult mappers would scream "edit war; bad touch!!!" were the high
road mapper to respond by reverting or editing to their preference.

But how do we distinguish between an idiosyncratic mapper who chooses
to be less-engaged with the broader community from a mapping bully who
will have it their way, regardless?  We[1] can discuss welcome and
unwelcome behaviours.  We can establish guidelines. We can educate
where required.  We can impose sanctions where the above don't work.

Discussion comes first.  DWG have a pattern of complaints from mappers
who feel that something must be done.  DWG is asking the US community
at large what you would have DWG do on your behalf?  You could tell
those mappers to "suck it up and stop whining."  That's what the
difficult accounts have effectively said.  I think that we can do
better than that.

I won't suggest that every complaint DWG receives deserves equal
weight after consideration of the matter.  And I won't suggest that
some accounts are always wrong while other accounts are always right.
But this is a giant flashing warning light.  With a klaxon.

[1] We = "We as a community"

More information about the Talk-us mailing list