[OSM-talk] LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee holding public discussions on Etiquette Guidelines
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Tue Sep 7 06:33:14 UTC 2021
Most of this first draft seems a huge and very appreciated improvement
to the existing Etiquette guidelines.
I still see some major issues:
1. *Absence of our core purpose, mapping.
*Derogatory comments on individual or groups mapping practices, like
f.i. micromapping, 3D mapping, landcover, individual trees etc...
are not mentioned as unwanted or exclusive behaviour. Justifications
to vote against, revert changes or block guidelines are as
discriminating and exclusive as other "socially motivated"
etiquette. Same for promoting or lobbying practices with the
opposite purpose to prove ones influence or dominance.
2. *"Effective communication*. Stay on topic and be concise."
Speaking from my own habits, being concise can have a very broad
interpretation. Higher educated native English speakers have a broad
vocabulary or jargon to express their ideas and views, effective and
short in their communication. Less proficient English speakers, even
anyone not experienced in public conversations might not be able to
be concise. This doesn't mean we should allow whole books being
written on our mailing list, but we should better define some kind
of threshold or directive what concise means. Not allowing long(er)
views or responses, enabling someone to make their point more clear
but on topic, is an example of open and inclusive communication.
Neglecting, being unresponsive or prohibiting communication because
it is not concise in ones personal or a committees view is as much
exclusive as other unwanted behaviour.
I propose to keep this statement more open as f.i. "Stay on topic.
Try to be as concise as possible, but feel comfortable and
appropriate to make your point, without dominating. Limit your
responses, avoid repetition and allow or assist others to summarize
your point(s)."
3. *Local diversity, culture and "street language".
*The etiquette is presented as being globally applicable. What we
forget however is the local context. Every response and
communication has to be understood and tested with the originators
background or the context or space where the conversation takes
place. The local context where it is used.
F.i. calling someone a nigger is very abusive and racist from a non
coloured unfamiliar person to a coloured person. However within a
community might be an expression, commonly used, of familiarity and
close friendship, bonding as in the same social position.
Another example f.i. "third world" or "developing countries", "poor
countries" when referring to communities with other social, cultural
or economical values. An African might call a North American "poor"
as in his cultural inheritance, social local micro community
behaviour and non predetermined solidarity. However, an aid provider
or donator, as referring to economical or financial global
significance of African communities uses "poor" in a much different
context, justified if the context in which he uses these terms is
made clear.
This might seem not a major point for the initially targetted
mailing lists. However can become a major issue as we expand to
other mailing lists and popular communication channels, and not to
forget local chapters.
4. *Behavior That Will Not Be Tolerated*
Does not belong in a comprehensive and general etiquette or code of
conduct. Leave it out and up to the moderation team to list a non
exhaustive list of examples. Prevent jargon or non generally known
terms, both as to describe negative behaviour but also to prevent
focus on specific groups to promote their issues or acceptance.
Regards and respect to all of you,
Bert Araali
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210907/ee8a00d4/attachment.htm>
More information about the talk
mailing list