[OSM-talk] [Tagging] This list requires moderation

[Tom Hughes]

I'm sure you'll be happy to tell us which part of the policy
that is contrary to?

Tom

On 07/02/2021 15:47, 80hnhtv4agou--- via talk wrote:
> this person is DWG.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck_repair 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck_repair>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck>
> and blocks people for ten years,
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck/blocks_by?page=1 
> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/woodpeck/blocks_by?page=1>
> contrary to the OSMF ban policy.
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy 
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Ban_Policy>
> 
>     Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:34 AM -06:00 from Frederik Ramm
>     <frederik at remote.org>:
>     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
> 
>     --
>     Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org
>     </compose?To=frederik at remote.org> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 


-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/