Talk:Etiquette/Etiquette Guidelines

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Etiquette Guidelines Revision - Public Comments & Suggestions

This draft document was open for public comment from August 13 to September 8, 2021. Thank you for your comments and suggestions! The Subcommittee did our best to incorporate feedback and respond to each thread.


Please define or link your acronyms. What is the LCCWG? --InsertUser (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link, thank you. SJFriedl (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As a former Wikipedian: language directed against a person is not always wrong and in some cases very necessary. If wrong things are done always by a person (never an "account") and his person is resitient for a longer time and against any advise of different users, "god faith" must be "used up" at some point to prevent putting more effort into malevolent people. Then one should be able to post clear and hard statements against this person. This must not be done in an abusive matter however. But with teh intention to remove this person from the project. Many topics seem to stem from ugly US-american "political correctness"-tought and are not much related to our real work here. Why no policiy not to rape any other member, abuse children or murder someone? Andreas König (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The focus of this subcommittee is communication within the mailing lists. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

In Encouraged/Expected Behavior: - On Concise communication --> to develop a little, "concise and assertive", and suggest to properly reference the subjects, the discussions'links, map-objects ID and links that are in question, lo limit misunderstanding and the over-extension of conversations.

- I'd add a point: Be constructive, present your ideas or concerns in a way that the discussion helps to brainstorm solutions

In Behavior That Will Not Be Tolerated: -Conduct, speech, or jokes that are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory or offensive in nature; ->>>Should we add the specific expressions of rejection towards new mappers and their normal behaviors of people in the early stages of learning?

- Posting (or threatening to post) other people's personally identifying information ("doxing"); --> could be more specific on what "personally identifying information" means?

- Inappropriate attention or communication. This includes continued unwelcome one-on-one communication after a request to cease, unwelcome sexual attention, and repeated harassment of others. --> to add the behavior of turning around a subject in a provocative attitude to generate emotional reactions; and define a little "harassment", which many people do not understand well: (from "act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands."

- I support the idea of reintegrating a posture against the promotion of conspiratorial ideas and against the attribution of political intentions (with polarizing effect) to groups, sectors, and persons, without intentions to offer constructive ideas to improve democracy, diversity or to strengthen the ideology of OSM mapeadora (talk)

Thanks for your comments. "Edit shaming" will be added to the list to discourage negativity towards new mappers. See response to conspiratorial ideas below. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Complete rephrasing advised

TL;DR The rules need to be rewritten in a simpler language. Consider a rewrite by people who have not participated in inclusiveness/CoC/diversity debates and who lack special knowledge in this topic.

The proposed guidelines make to much use of highly-sophiscated English but address to all participants of the channels they apply to. Therefore, their usage of the English language should be inclusive, not exclusive. The average foreign English speaker joining a channel should be able understand the guidelines completely. Here are a couple of examples I stumbled across:

  • What do you mean by "subculture"? I know a meaning of it but I suspect that you mean something different.
  • I understand what "strive" means in your context but there are simpler words available, aren't they?
  • "It is surprisingly easy to misunderstand each other, be it online or in person; particularly in such a culturally and linguistically diverse setting as OpenStreetMap.": The phrase "culturally and linguistically diverse setting" moving this into a separate sentence would improve the text: "Members of the OSM community come from various cultures, English is a foreign language for most of them. We frequently misunderstand each other.
  • "Enthusiastic discussions are part of the lifeblood of a successful project and disagreements are inevitable.": "lifeblood of a successful project" makes literally translated no sense, please avoid constructs like this. "disagreements are inevitable" can be rewritten as "we do disagree in some topics".
  • I hope that we do not expect all community members to be experts in debates about CoC and misbehaviour. The three of the four words "deliberate intimidation or harassment" require knowledge of these debates. I learned them around the CoC debates on the OSMF-Talk mailing list about five or six years ago. Aren't there simpler words? What exactly is harrassment? Maybe replacing it by one or two sentences would improve the text?
  • "Conduct, speech, or jokes that are sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, ableist or otherwise discriminatory or offensive in nature". Due to my education, I am not afraid of foreign words. Sexist, racist and homophobic are common in public discussions. Transphobic is against trans*. But do we need to call xenophobic xenophobic? Could we express "against people from foreign countries" with simpler words? Maybe use "against people of foreign origin"? To be honest, I had to look up the word "ableist" in a dictionary while writing this message. It means "against disabled people". I am sure I read the word elsewhere, but I forgot its meaning.

I stop commenting here because I could mark half of the words in the proposed text with a red pen. By writing the bullet points above, I came to the conclusion that your text will be easy to understand by people with detailed knowledge of inclusiveness, CoC and diversity. However, the text should aim to be comprehensible by as much readers as possible. This means that sentences should be simpler and chosen words should be more common. Writing rules in a indirect way with much wording around it which itself has limited direct meaning, makes a text difficult to understand. Easy to read texts are direct and short. "Do not cross the yellow line" is easier than "We strive for maximum safety for all our passengers. In order to achieve that, we kindly ask you to avoid crossing the yellow line painted along the edge of the platform."

If we want to have a difficult law about behaviour in OSM and need experts in our community who will interpret and explain the law for the majority, this text should be stay as it is. If we want to be really inclusive and not discriminate against people with mental issues, lacking knowledge of the English language and culture, etc., we should rewrite the text. Could you consider to let this text be rewritten by a non-native speaker with non-perfect English and few knowledge about inclusiveness? I don't want to say that some rules should be removed but all of the would benefit from rephrasing. --Nakaner (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I second that. Keep in mind that OSM is an international project, these are the main mailing lists and tat many non-native speakers are struggling with English at best. (See this discussion comment as example) Everybody should be able to understand the guidelines. --Nop (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I think Nakaner has a point here and I must admit that this makes me question the process that was used to come up with this document. I see that the group contains many non-native speakers of English of whom at least some must have stumbled on the same issues that Nakaner has mentioned. What does that tell us about the degree to which these members were actually involved in the writing of the document? Is it possible that the document was essentially written by one or two native speakers and all the other committee members just nodded because they didn't want to offend? --Woodpeck (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, the link behind "LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee" mistakenly points to the wiki page of the whole LCCWG. Hence my misunderstanding above that many non-native speakers of English must have participated. Who exactly is on the "LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee"? How "diverse" is that group seeing that it has created a text that is so difficult to read for non-native speakers of English? --Woodpeck (talk)
I'm posting the link again here, since you seemed to have missed it on my forum post: Mmd (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

We will revisit the document and simplify/clarify where possible. Additionally we will invite an external party to review the document for clarity while maintaining the meaning. We will also encourage translations into as many languages as possible to extend understanding. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

A few comments from me

Thanks to the Subcommittee for all the work on this, I'm very glad to see this happening. I have a few comments which I hope could make this draft stronger:

  • "Encouraged/Expected behaviour" - is it encouraged, expected, or both? This phrase would benefit from clarification
  • "Effective communication" - unlike previous four behaviours, this is not an imperative but a noun. Perhaps it would be better if the behaviors were made consistent.
  • "Examples of behaviors that will not be tolerated include, but are not limited to" - I would hope this section would explain what behaviors are not tolerated, rather than give examples. Examples are good to illustrate principles, but these principles should be themselves explained first.
  • "Conduct, speech, or jokes that are (...) offensive in nature", "The use of unwelcome (...) terms", "innuendo", "Inappropriate attention or communication" - These appear to me too vague to understand what would and what would not qualify. I think one of the main points of this document should be to explain what is unwelcome or inappropriate.
  • "repeated harassment of others." - I think harassment should not be tolerated even if it is not repeated. Øukasz (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Will change to 'Expected'. Will add Tips for Effective Communication as a subsection and remove from Expected Behaviours. These are meant to be guidelines not strict rules, and cannot foresee or capture every situation that might arise. It will be up to the Moderators to continue to define.[subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

The old etiquette guidelines included "No conspiracy theories", which is somehow absent in the current draft proposal. It's not clear to me if this simply an oversight, or if this is being tolerated now. It would be good if someone in the group could comment why some of the previous guidelines have been dropped. Mmd (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to extend that. I noted that the rules are only about behaviour, not about unwanted content at all. I would expect that SPAM, religious and political beliefs, conspiracy theories, hate speech and fake news are not welcome on an OSM list. There is only a suggestion that you should be on topic and by implication all that stuff should be unwanted as off-topic, but that is rather weak. That also means that moderators have a tough time stopping it, from my experience the response will often be the exuse that it was not forbidden explicitly, and that the SPAM was formulated politely. --Nop (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the above about a need for disinformation generally to be discouraged and addressable in OSMF conversations, though this should be policed with restraint, with public corrections with independent citations being the preferred way to address it. --Climate Ben 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the wording should be 'no conspiracy theories'. For example, if someone believes that there is a conspiracy within a particular OSM group to achieve an end (eg. further a national interest, or to take over something for commercial purposes) I think that person should be allowed to say so, tedious as the resulting discussion may be. I don't *think* that is what is mean here by 'conspiracy theory', but the phrase is so broad it would include it. Marinheiro (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this thread. We will add disinformation and misinformation to capture conspiracy theories and other such things that could lead to harm. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet another CoC?

Why does every FOSS project need their own CoC? I'd prefer if there was a single universal CoC and projects simply opted into it. --Wulf4096 (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. The Subcommittee agrees and this option would have saved us a great deal of work! [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Scope extension for changeset comments

I would extend the scope of the guidelines to changeset comments since it's the same mechanism (public, archived and no modification/deletion possible). I don't think it would require a single change in the content and it is also a first contact with community, exacerbated by common newbie errors. For wiki it would require additional specific guidelines so i would not include it in the scope (there is a mechanism to replace previously posted contents, opening the door to other type of nuisance). LeTopographeFou (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitely agree this could be a consideration later on, but this is out of scope for now. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Add a section for citations

When replying to a comment or question, it is recommanded to cite the comment, the question or the user name whenever it is not obvious which one gives the context (for instance there might be several questions or comments from several users, some will get answers others not). This is to help reducing misunderstanding.

When citing other user writings, do not attempt to reword, change the meaning or truncate the sentences to the point that the writing becomes unclear or express a different idea. Use quotes or mail citation syntax and if the sentence needs to be truncated or lightly modified use square brackets to highlight the changes ([...] when part has been intentionaly removed, [whatever words] when those words where not part of original message but have been added to clarify a citation out of its initial context). LeTopographeFou (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like it's routine good practices for communications and not really subject to CoC unless it's intentional and/or malicous mis-quoting. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Guidelines visibility

It is a good thing to have guidelines but it is another story to know there is one (especially when you are not aware of how communities work) and where to find it. It is difficult to enforce guidelines when it is hidden somewhere in another medium. Also an hidden guideline is likely to not be used. How is it plan to make people aware of its existance ? Proposals: Add a link at the bottom of every mail sent to the mailing lists, share a link at subscription time and updates yearly because we all know that it's a constant war even with long experienced community members. LeTopographeFou (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This could potentially be linked at the footer of the mailing lists and for new members joining. When this is complete, the subcommittee would like to write a blog, and invite the CWG for support broadcasting the guidelines. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

non-violent language directed against another person

I am unsure how to parse “Violent threats, abuse, or language directed against another person”. Is it “(Violent threats), (abuse), or (language) directed against another person“ or “Violent (threats, abuse, or language) directed against another person”. i.e is “non-violent language directed against another person” something to be banned? (One could make an argument for, or against, banning that type of action. However this document should not have ambigities.) Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Will rewrite to say " Threats, abuse or violent language..." [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarify that protections apply to natural persons only

Especially in the US you will often see the argument that corporations are people. They are not, and I would welcome it if these guidelines made clear that the protections offered by the document only apply to natural persons and not to corporate entities. --Woodpeck (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree: Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 10:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Having been censored for writing "M$" or "Google is your fiend" (note the deliberately omitted 'r') on other forums, I second that. --Kevin Kofler (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Why is it okay to exclude corporations? Do you really want to see offensive language even if it's pointed at the worst corporation in the world? I certainly don't. People have posted comments above about countries. Countries are not natural persons. Is that okay? --Glassman (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of the things discussed in this document only work for people. For example, "communicate with the same respect you would utilize in person" - you cannot communicate with a non-natural person, only with individual natural persons in their service. Clearly, those who have written the document had human beings in mind when they wrote it. I am just asking to have this made clear, so that we don't have people down the line abusing this document for corporate goals, to silence those who are considered a risk to the next round of VC capital or whatever. --Woodpeck (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, many standard phrases we use for engaging with individual persons ("assume good faith") just don't work with corporations; corporations cannot have "faith" or anything like that, they are driven by their funders who want to see a return on investment. A company employee can't imbue his employer with goodness. They can be the nicest person on earth, and nonetheless forced to screw you over in the name of the interests of the company. (It is well possible that their professionalism as an employee dictates that course of action.) There's no such thing as a company that "means well" or "is friendly" or anything. Hence, rules governing the interaction of people cannot apply to corporations. --Woodpeck (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Let's distinguish between the use of violent or offensive language for talking about corporations, governments, and other such collective entities (which should be moderated against), from protections against direct criticism that could constitute abuse if directed toward an individual (which is much murkier). An example of when this issue is relevant is when people who are supportive of a national government label criticisms of that government as racist against the predominant ethnic group of that country. --Climate Ben 10:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
What about when someone is making the comment about a corporation toward one of it's employees? I ask because Woodpeck was rather insulting about Facebook to one of it's employees. Corporations are ultimately made up of people, who are likely to be hurt and offended by people insulting the company. Is there really a way someone can accuse a company of being a rapist (Woodpeck's words BTW. Not mine) without also implicating the employees? I doubt it. "Well, I didn't specifically call the employees rapists and corporations aren't people..soo.." is a really a weak defense of behavior that would otherwise be unacceptable. There isn't a clear line between "offensive" and "criticism" either. Ultimately, whatever term you use to describe the language being used, no conversation should become personal. Probably including this one, but I already sunk that ship ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. OSM is about mapping, and discussions shall be around _OSM_ mapping activities. It is not a place to blow off freely against a corporation, a country or a community (including political, religiours or sexual orientation). I don't care about somebody opinion about GAFAM (especially when it is not constructive), I only care about how they interract with OSM data and services, factually, for the better and the worst. Talking about individuals, yes behind a company (or a community, association, country...) there are mens and womens who sometimes fight hard to change things (even if they are a minority). Ask yourself if you would endorse all decisions of your company (or country)... I would not. Insulting them is never a civilized and adult way to discuss and encourage them. In short OSM is not a playground, it's a community of people who are here to MAP and we shall focus on what we do the better: Mapping. LeTopographeFou (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The intent of the Guidelines is to improve communication on the mailing list and encourage constructive conversations. Offensive or violent language is not acceptable regardless of where it’s directed. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Exemptions for QA

(NB I find it a bit disingenious to request comments in the context of "this is for talk and osmf-talk only" and then say in a side note that you would like to apply it to all of the OSMF spaces. What exactly are people expected to comment on - the suitability for two mailing lists or the suitability for OSMF as a whole? I suspect many commenters will limit themselves to the framing of "this is for two mailing lists only".)

If this is ever applied to the wider OSMF sphere, then I think some exceptions need to be made for quality assurance. One phrase that definitely needs refinement in that case is "Inappropriate attention or communication. This includes continued unwelcome one-on-one communication after a request to cease" - because I can actually point to cases where a (perhaps neuro-diverse) person has continually made problematic edits, has continually been made aware of these problems, and has then explicitly requested that the person pointing out the data quality issues cease all communication. Legitimate QA is not something that anybody can opt out of. --Woodpeck (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

For now, this is out of scope because we're focusing on the 2 mailing lists. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

sexually explicit material & LGBTQ issues

The guidelines ban “Posting sexually explicit or violent material”. However sometimes people use that against LGBTQ+ people, claiming that all queer sexualities, or relationships, are “too sexually explicit” (cf. the kink at pride conversations). What if a social event takes places in a venue that openly gives away condoms? Other CoCs say “Gratuitous or off-topic sexual images or behaviour in spaces where they’re not appropriate.” Amᵃᵖanda (talk)

I don't understand this weird example. What do condoms have to do with OpenStreetMap?

I'd feel quite uncomfortable if condoms were handed to me on an OSM event. Westnordost (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe Amᵃᵖanda's example is talking about a venue, such as a pub or community space, that has condoms available for guests to take on a regular basis, where someone might host an event such as a meetup or small in-person mapathon. The condoms are from the venue, not the event. This isn't unusual for venues that cater to communities that might have trouble accessing health services that suit their needs.

I do think it would be useful for the guidelines to state that there should be no double standard for what is "explicit" between straight/cis and LGBTQ+ content. (In very conservative circles, even just acknowledging LGBTQ+ identities is labeled as "explicit.") Discussion of unique health needs, access to health services, inclusive spaces, relationships, etc. do not become "explicit" when they pertain to LGBTQ+ people.

--Climate Ben 11:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The moderators will be relied upon to make judgements based on these guidelines. Will edit to "Posting sexually explicit or violent material, including gratuitous or inappropriate sexual images." [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Local cultural standards

OpenStreetMap sets a high focus on building local communities with local communication channels. But different cultures have different standards on what exactly is considered acceptable behavior and what is not. E.g., something considered inappropriate in the USA might not be considered inappropriate in Austria, or the other way round. Therefore, I believe that local communities should be allowed to set their own local standards for their country-specific communication channels (talk-COUNTRYCODE mailing list, country-specific forum section, #osm-COUNTRYCODE IRC chan). Imposing the same global guidelines modeled after US-centric Codes of Conduct amounts to imposing US-American cultural imperialism on all local communities and ultimately amounts to disrespecting local cultures.

--Kevin Kofler (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: As an example: Last year, an IRC channel of an international Free Software project took offense at me making a joke indirectly referring to Covid19 (and no, I was not denying the virus's existence or dangerousity or anything silly like that), whereas Austrian and German comedy programs at the time were (and to this day still are) full of Covid19 jokes. --Kevin Kofler (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this: from my understanding the aim of OSM is to empower local communities. Since there are communities from all over the world I think it would be really hard to set a standard of appropriateness that is valid worldwide. This means that "unwelcome, suggestive, derogatory or inappropriate nicknames or terms. [..] hurtful or harmful language..." is really dependent on your culture. A rule written in this way would need somebody in every community to decide what is appropriate and what is not. I don't know if this is feasible. --Gabrielesani (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This, extremely so! I am in Australia, & as some of you may (or may not?) be aware, over here "Mate" is an extremely common way to refer to other people, in either a good, or possibly bad, way. "G'day mate" (which translates to Good-day!) is a friendly way of saying hello, even if you don't even know the other person. "Watch it mate" could either be the opposite (I don't like what you're doing, so stop it or else), or it could be a simple warning to "Watch out" for a potential hazard.

Of course, "Mate" also has another, biological meaning though!

After this explanation, my reason for commenting... One of my sons spends (a lot of!) time on Discord, where he is a moderator on a game server. A little while ago, he mentioned that after a discussion there, he finished things off by saying "Thanks, mate" to the other person. The other person was apparently somewhat taken back by this comment & suggested that it was inappropriate & so on! How do you get around problems like that? --Fizzie41 (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

While I largely agree with the idea that there should be local standards, I think that having an overarching set of standards and a moderation protocol is important for two reasons, which should be made explicit:

1. There are lots of conversations that happen across cultures, and as the examples above show, words have different conditions in different countries even when they speak the same language. (Just look at what's a cuss word in different English-speaking countries.) The moderation process should include a sensitivity to such cross-cultural miscommunications and de-escalate them appropriately. 2. There should be baseline global standards that protect the right of everyone to engage in civil discourse, even people who are marginalized in specific localities. To use an example from another conversation on this page, local communities shouldn't be able to use standards about "sexually explicit content" to label all discussions of LGBTQ+ communities and needs as inappropriate for those local mapping communities. --Climate Ben 11:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Some local communities already have their own codes of conduct. These Etiquette Guidelines will be moderated on two mailing lists for now. It will be up to the OSMF Board whether or not to expand its scope. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

My opinion on this

As I now had the chance to look on the Guidelines, IMHO it's pretty much OK.(in IRL i see so much hatred against other cultures,countries etc but IMHO there shouldn't be any, but many people just generalize which is a bad thing, and i like that this is written in the guidelines to avoid acting like a hater) I don't seem to change anything on this, but probably some people would like to change the draft. Ottwiz (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation! [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

off-list actions affecting list moderation?

Can actions a person takes outside the talk@/osmf-talk@ list be taken into account (by the list moderators)? e.g. Can you be banned from the talk@ list because of what you wrote on twitter? Or must the mod team only use what a person wrote on the list? There are reasonable arguments for, or against, this. But it should be written down if (or how much) off-list actions can be taken into account. Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC) (who thinks off-list actions really should be taken into account)

Disagree. It's not because OSM forbid me for good reasons to talk about a topic on its lists (politics? Faith?...) that I should be denied the right to speak of those subjects somewhere else, especially on places where it is appropriated. The scope of application shall match the places of discussion, otherwise it's dictatorial IMHO. Also with all the nicknames (myself included which I use ONLY on OSM), and also with nickname changing to blur things, good luck to link accounts. We should ban OSM accounts based on their behaviour on OSM services, not users based on their life outside of OSM. LeTopographeFou (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
IMHO, sanctions should only ever possibly apply to the medium on which the offense occurred. Not even all OSM-related media, but the specific medium. E.g., I do not consider it fair to ban somebody from a mailing list because of something they wrote on IRC, or even on another mailing list. And the behavior on venues not related to OSM should be entirely irrelevant. --Kevin Kofler (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this is all that relevant, most Twitter users are unlikely to be affected by a talk ban anyway. I would however welcome, if people with "special powers" took extra care to ensure that their actions serve as a "role model". Mmd (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of this process is to improve OpenStreetMap mailing list communications, which does not include off-list actions. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Subtle changes of scope

The draft says: "We should strive to make a good first impression and we should be aware that many of these channels are archived in one form or another and will survive for a long time." Pondering the usefulness of the guidelines for CS comments, which perhaps are the channel, where most (new) users get into contact with other (old) users for the first time, it appeared to me, that the quoted sentence touches on another dimension than making people feel comfortable inside of the community. The sentence expands the scope of the guidelines to "How people from outside of the community perceive the public display," that the community gives of itself. If this is intended, it should be made more explicit. --Hungerburg (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering the outside view perhaps just comes out of having become much more of an institution. The etiquette is about to turn into a code. What was a nuisance then, now will be an offence. So, much more care has to be taken in phrasing, while getting more accessible to non-native speakers in the same turn. In light of future expansion of applications of the code, this is even more of a concern.

While both etiquette and code for most people will only state the obvious, it is still nice to describe the obvious too, might it be redundant. In parts, this worked out wonderfully, in parts it just adds redundancy for the love of the language. Reading the old Etiquette article gives me the sense of something written in an ad-hoc way, likely as a reaction to experiences, that the authors rather avoid than repeat. Years have passed, the number of such experiences has grown and the theoretical back-pack to handle them did just the same. Please let yourselves not get carried away, stay on topic and concise. And yeah! The number of experiences seems to have shrunk, rather than grown.

Random issues: * Why was the sentence "those we disagree with might remind us" dropped? It is so much on topic! Might spare some moderation * Why is "sex" only mentioned in 10th place in the "regardless of" partial in the introduction? It surely is one of the more major kinds of discrimination. (Is it due to the alphabet?) * The hint to "consider private messaging", is it meant, to not create permanent public records, or is it meant to disburden the moderators? (Maybe much more of an issue, when the code applies to CS comments.) * To be continued maybe. --Hungerburg (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The list was not created in order of importance. When two people are clearly having a 1-1 conversation, private messaging is encouraged to not overwhelm other list participants. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Subcommittee scope limited to 2 mailing lists at this time. - The Open Letter showed that there’s a gap between OSM’s large community vs. the small number of people active on the lists, and this scope is meant to improve the usefulness of the lists for the community. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Origins of the call to revise the Etiquette Guidelines

Just a reminder that members of the LCCWG stepped up to create the subcommittee after "A Call to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behaviour in the OSM Community" was signed by more than 300 individuals and organizations. I think it's worthwhile to revisit the original Calling People to Take Action and Confront Systemic Offensive Behavior in the OSM Community (.pdf on the wiki) This is the document that resulted in the Board asking the LCCWG Moderation Subcommittee to suggest a course of action. We should judge the proposed Etiquette Guideline revision on how well it addresses the concerns raised in the Call to Action document Glassman (talk)

Thanks for the clarification on the Agenda of the OSMF here. What i have been wondering about in that context: Does the LCCWG subcommittee see any of the demands of the mentioned document critically and therefore does specifically not intend to address them in the draft here? --Imagico (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The Open Letter made several recommendations to the Board that we’re not working on here. The scope for this subcommittee is limited to just the parts of the Letter’s recommendations that the Board assigned to our subcommittee, and that the subcommittee felt equipped to take on in a reasonable amount of time. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to mention for the record that this does not actually answer my question.
In addition this statement is not an accurate representation of history. You write The scope for this subcommittee is limited to just the parts of the Letter’s recommendations that the Board assigned to our subcommittee - that is factually wrong. As you can read up the actual tasking by the board was not in any way limited in scope to implementing specific recommendations. The committee then defined its own scope - which was then approved by the board but presenting that as a limited assignment by the board while it was essentially a self-assignment by the committee is in conflict with what is documented to have happened.
My question if there are any demands of the mentioned document that the LCCWG subcommittee sees critically was specifically asked in light of the fact that the scope of the work of the committee was self selected by the committee members and @Glassman: mentions above that We should judge the proposed Etiquette Guideline revision on how well it addresses the concerns raised in the Call to Action document. --Imagico (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

adding "9-Year-Old Child" readers - as a moderation rule

--ImreSamu (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Many age groups are underrepresented. Our hope is that the work we're doing will encourage more participation from all age groups. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Use of pronouns

One of the standards of conduct should be that, if a user has indicated their pronouns of choice, other users are expected to use those pronouns. --Climate Ben 10:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In case other users would voluntarily use other pronouns than the ones of choice, intentional misgendering could be specifically added as a behavior to be avoided (as it is already the case with dead-naming). --Claire Halleux 23:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Act in good faith" is intended to cover this kind of behaviour, as is discouraging disrespectful behaviour. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Complex language in the wording

As non-native speaker, I see some words not being part of my active vocabulary:

- see facial expression, hear tone or see other cues - the word "cue"
- are part of the lifeblood of a successful project - the word "lifeblood"
- including deliberate intimidation or harassment - the word "intimidation"
- such as retaliation, personal insults, dead-naming, or innuendo. - words "retaliation", "innuendo". "dead-naming" I know but can foresee that it's not very widely known around my area.

It will help others if the grammar structure of text is simplified.

Upon finalization of the draft, the subcommittee will request funds to have the document reviewed by a plain english service and updated based on recommendations. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Major missing issues

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.

"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)."

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.

It is mentioned before on this discussion page but in a slightly different context. Although it will be a huge challenge, adherence to these guidelines by local chapters and moderation is absolutely necessary. Being a victim of neglect, stigmatising by local chapter leaders, I think I know what I am talking about. If a group or channel uses the OSM name, in any language, must have it's own code of conduct, localised, moderated in the local context, with as minimum requirement adherence to this OSMF or global OSM etiquette. Most new comers don't even know or are often introduced on these local channels and might get or even actually find a very unwelcoming environment.

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.

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.

--Bert Araali (talk) 06:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. We will add "avoid repetition when making your point on a thread" to the 'Effective Communication' line. We hope local chapters will decide to create their own Etiquette Guidelines or have the ability to opt in the the OSMF guidelines in the future. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

1984 vs. "preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences."

  • "mailing lists" ~ so we are also writers

What we can learn from this Open Letter?

"This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us."

  • Will "OSMF spaces" encourage experimentation, risk-taking and small mistakes in the future?
  • Can we use the "craft-mapper"/"armchair mapper"/"corporate mapper" words - if the 10% of readers said this is too "suggestive" or "disrespect"? .. so this words "Will Not Be Tolerated" in the OSMF lists?

--ImreSamu (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ImreSamu: A few weeks ago I was accused of being a Karen, which is a racist and sexist term, for asking someone why deleted a residential area. Also, a while someone told me they were going stomp me to death like a rat and they tried to dox me. Which was dealt with by the DWG by telling me to go map somewhere else. I seriously doubt having consequences for such behavior will create a "stifling atmosphere." It's way more stifling to be doxed or threatened then for there to be consequences for doing them. In the meantime, are you really going to say the way to stop doxing and death threats is "making room for experimentation, risk taking, and mistakes?" As if. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest I should just suck it up and chalk the whole thing up to a lack of experimentation the next time someone tells me they are going to stomp me to death like a rat LMAO. Having the DWG brush it off by telling me to go map somewhere else isn't the answer either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We acknowledge that excessive moderation can be as damaging as no moderation. The intent is that the moderation team will work to find an appropriate balance when applying "Assume good faith" principle. [subcommittee] MaggieMaps (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit shaming

The phrase "edit shaming" is not sufficiently described. In particular, it is unclear what behaviors are being prohibited beyond the others already described (e.g., bullying, insults, etc). It is quite common to discuss an individual's edits in public forum, and an overly prescriptive constraint on this could produce a chilling effect on open debate and risk community opposition to the guidelines writ large. It would be better to have text that starts, "When discussing another user's edits..." that clarifies unacceptable behavior. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Right now it can be interpreted "no negative comments about edits that someone made is allowed" (even if it is not reasonable intepretation it will be used sooner or later by some troll) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree this is not well defined. When I saw that term in the guidelines today, I did not recognize it, I searched for <"edit shaming" + define> on Google, and found this page as the third hit, and the fourth hit is from the OSMF board meeting about this document. The first two hits do not actually contain the phrase "edit shaming". The fifth search result for that search, and the first hit for the phrase "edit shaming" is an article called "Stop Edit Shaming Indie Authors" which also lacks a definition, but seems to imply that edit shaming is something about lack of editing oversight or too many typographical errors, perhaps. I suspect that in this guideline it is suppose to be about correcting grammer, spelling and typographical errors in a rude way? --Jeisenbe (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
It turns out I was completely wrong. According apm-wa in a discussion on the OSM-Talk mailing list:
"Edit shaming" is any effort to humiliate or discourage a member of the OSM community from expressing a viewpoint, opinion, or fact, or otherwise to participate in OSM community affairs, due to said member's relatively low number of edits of the OSM geospatial database ("the map"). Hypothetical examples of "edit shaming" might be posts to the talk lists including such verbiage as: "Who do you think you are to express an opinion on Topic X with only 863 changesets under your belt?" "Anyone with fewer than 5,000 changesets should not be allowed to run for the OSMF board." "I don't think that you know what you are talking about, given that you have only ten days of mapping this year."
So it's negatively commenting on another person's number of mapping edits. It has nothing to do with typography or writing. --Jeisenbe (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Doxing: (Posting (or threatening to post) information that could identify another person)

One of the examples of prohibited behavior is "Posting (or threatening to post) information that could identify another person (doxing)." However, doxing is usually qualified as posting such information with intent to identify a person who wishes to remain anonymous, in order to threaten, harrass or intimidate. As the dictionary says, it is done "typically with malicious intent". This is an important distinction. There are many cases where someone has already publically made their name or location available on their user page, or in public mailing list posts. In that case it would be reasonable to assume that they do not expect their name and general location to be kept private.

For example, User:apm-wa is linked with a real name on many mailing list posts and official OSMF announcements. So even though neither the wiki page User:apm-wa nor the user page mention a real name, it is safe to assume that this user (who is the current chair of the OSM Foundation) would not mind my mentioning their real name here or on an OSM mailing list, therefore it would not be doxing. It is also not doxing to mention what countries User:apm-wa has recently lived in and mapped in, since this is publically mentioned on both those linked pages and many previous mailing list posts and public articles. On the other hand, were anyone to post the current street address User:apm-wa, this would be clearly inappropriate, even if they found it by searching USA public records, since they hav not already shared their present address. --Jeisenbe (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, it would be entirely fine to comment, if that context would be relevant, that I am from Poland or Kraków, Poland. It would be not doxxing at all as I clearly revealed it on multiple places and have taken no steps to hide it. (BTW, "who is the current chair of the OSM Foundation" is not accurate) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Where does it apply?

Currently says "talk" and "osmf-talk" mailing lists.

Is it intended it should also apply to Discourse instance too? --mnalis (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these guidelines do now also apply on most categories of the Community Forum (all except those which have category-specific guidelines). --Tordanik 16:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)