I would pretty much dislike that the DWG is partvof any backroom chats. Discussion like this one should be in the open.
Discussions like this, yes, absolutely. But all conversation?
I think that discussions about individual cases do not need public scrutiny - if they result in reverts or user blocks then there will be a public record. That’s no different from how DWG operates otherwise. Discussions about policy or how to deal with things in general are best had in the open of course.
I’m only using IRC/Matrix myself but it is possible that some DWG members are on Signal, I’d have to ask around.
5 Likes
discussions on
- whether specific account is troll/vandal or just clueless newbie
- about how specific counter-vandal tool has weakness or blind spot
- how and whether ban specific account
- is report nonsense or real
- who is at fault in some edit war nonsense
- how to deal with legal complaint (or legal-shaped complaint)
are good examples of discussions where making them in public accessible to all has some significant drawbacks
13 Likes
So DWG is also in backroom chats with jOSM, iD, … and all the other editors? I would assume that’s not the case. If so, it would be great if DWG is disclosing something like that as something like this is not mentioned on Data Working Group - OpenStreetMap Foundation
| Mapping surveillance is one of the most popular ways people have discovered OpenStreetMap in the past year or two in the United States.
I have noticed more than average number of new users recently who are creating significant amounts of new OSM data via their local knowledge.
Er, what? I’ve read the posts to which it is a reply and it seems to be an extrapolation from almost nothing. @woodpeck’s post above explains it - some stuff is better in public (the block list is public, so are changeset comments) but some discussions aren’t (conversations with an individual via DWG tickets, for example).
Any “new, popular” app will get people who appear and don’t really understand what is going on**, especially one that relates to political divides that already exist. Sometimes a quiet word with the authors about best practice makes sense; Personally I’ve often tried the same approach with e.g. HOT task creators where the same problem occurs.
The OSMF wiki page concentrates on the “technical” rather than the “social”. I suspect that it’s actually long enough as it is and probably would not benefit from more detail.
** see also e.g. numerous Bitcoin apps.
Edit: spelling
2 Likes
You and another DWG member liked that post, so I understand you are in favor of those points. Like DWG is talking in secret with an editor maintainer on which osm-user to ban. Like DWG+jOSM guy talking about whether to ban me or not. That’s totally not acceptable. If DWG is going to ban a user, that discussion should be solely between the user and the DWG.
For the avoidance of doubt, OSM’s ban policy is here. That’s a pretty high bar to clear.
Most user blocks are not bans. You can see the list for me here, and for the DWG as a whole here. Looking at the ones where adders of Flock cameras have been affected, most user blocks are of the “please contact us” variety (relevent paragraph in the OSMF policy here)
With regard to “that discussion should be solely [my emphasis] between the user and the DWG” that is almost never the case. Usually there are two sides to a dispute (user X has reported user Y) and we’ll talk to both X and Y to try and understand what is going on. Sometimes in that situation it really is user Y that is the problem, sometimes it is actually user X, and sometimes it is a bit of both.
4 Likes
I know how you guys operate, but none of what you wrote is relevant here. @Mateusz_Konieczny was suggesting that it is useful if DWG is discussing secretly with some maintainer of an editor (that’s the topic in this thread) whether or not “to ban an specific account”. You (and another DWG member) put an 
below. I don’t think this is appropriate, your linked ban policy states also otherwise. So maybe your were a miss-click?
you were asking for ban on “any backroom chats” which is definitely overly broad
for more specific
I would say it also may be appropriate in some cases
for example to obtain additional info available to operators of DeFlock app/website and not available directly to DWG (for example, whether there are clear indicators that multiple accounts are likely operated from the same computer)
1 Like
no, I was responding to broad ban proposal on “any backroom chats”
Note that
was not specifically about banning specific users, and maybe it is not used at all for that. And I have not thought about such use when posting my reply.
My expectation was that it would be used for “we introduced measure X to block vandals on our side but it likely can be avoided with method Y, do you know is there obvious way to handle this?”
which for obvious reasons ideally would not be posted in public
(note: I am not in this chat, I have no idea what if anything was posted there, but “any backroom chats” being abandoned is a bad idea. Moderation is for obvious reason source of drama and complaints*. Doing all discussion in open would not be a solution and I am not aware of any place doing moderation this way, for obvious reasons.)
* DWG is doing amazingly well, especially by standards of content moderation on Internet
7 Likes
You are clearly unhappy about something but it’s not really clear to me what? Perhaps this is an example where a “private” discussion would make sense - drop an email to data@openstreetmap.org to avoid cluttering this thread about something else.
Edit: spelling
11 Likes
I just wanted to chime in to say that I fully support the DWG using all of the tools in their toolbox – including both public and private communications with users, app developers, etc., to facilitate their job of data and community integrity.
I absolutely support DWG members conferring privately amongst themselves or key stakeholders in the broader community when deciding on how to deal with something.
The job is hard enough, and we shouldn’t be constraining them with unrealistic demands to share privileged conversations. They are volunteers in a position of trust based on appointment overseen by the OSMF board, which is elected by the membership, and through that they are accountable to all of us. Please, let’s say thank you instead and let them do their job.
23 Likes
The post we liked Data Working Group private vs. public discussions - #4 by Mateusz_Konieczny said:
"discussions on
- whether specific account is troll/vandal or just clueless newbie
- about how specific counter-vandal tool has weakness or blind spot
- how and whether ban specific account
- is report nonsense or real
- who is at fault in some edit war nonsense
- how to deal with legal complaint (or legal-shaped complaint)
are good examples of discussions where making them in public accessible to all has some significant drawbacks"
Nothing in that post refers in any way to DWG having private conversations with anybody outside the DWG / Admins (or in extreme cases, the OSMF Board), or the OP &/or target of any complaint.
I have no idea where you got
from, as it just doesn’t happen, & I can’t even begin to imagine when it ever would?
I’m sorry, but no, you clearly don’t.
6 Likes
This “OSM–DeFlock admins” chat is no Signalgate. It’s literally just some mappers who have agreed to be liaisons.
The DeFlock developers have been active in community spaces, especially OSMUS Slack since most of their user base is located in the U.S. As the application has expanded elsewhere, they’ve needed help navigating the landscape of our broader project. I’ve been in touch with them about various topics as I know other mappers have. In case you’re wondering, many OSM software developers have similar communication channels too.
In OSM we don’t demand that everyone talk to everyone everywhere all at once. As a case in point, mappers are often told to settle their differences privately before getting the DWG involved. If you’re feeling left out of conversations about improving mapper retention and curbing abuse, you could volunteer to advise them on these issues too.
4 Likes
for reference, I have an ongoing private chat with @Minh_Nguyen about tagging schema
not because of some secret world domination plans, but because I got told I create too many public feedback collection threads and that is one of my ways to get extra feedback about changes to English labels/terms/names
(and it almost entirely stuff like
with responses posted in public on id tagging schema issue tracker)
If anyone else volunteers to be a victim of a similar spam, let me know
7 Likes
At least I can’t find your name on the list of DWG members, neither Mateusz, so for sure you can have private talks as much as you like, as well with whomever you like. Also I don’t have an issue with DWG-members offering consultations without DWG-hat in private.
But OSMF mandates, that all consultation of their working groups must be accessible via an open channel. I don’t see how this works together with having consultations with an editor in private.
note how it is defined
By open platforms, we mean those that are accessible through open-source software and open protocols, and do not require an account at a third-party service to access.
it is not banning private communication, for example it does not require mirroring OSFM board members mail for public access, it does not require publishing video recording of all OSMF board meetings, it does not require ban discussions to be public
it also does not ban requiring first-party accounts
if it applies to say ban discussions of DWG then it requires them to be hosted on non-proprietary software rather than mandating public disclosure of all of them
But this policy bans DWG from making policy announcements only and solely on Twitter.
Making part of this communication public would be mandated by other rules or common sense (if someone wants to make public consultations then it is hard to run them without publishing something to people).
well, I was on OSMF board for some time and definitely not all backroom chat was published
some parts would be outright impossible to do at all without making discussion private
(more should be made public but “ban all private discussion” is just turbosilly and I have no idea why you think it would be a good idea, it seems blatantly obvious how badly it would go)
Even assuming this was the goal to ban all private conversations where is the line drawn? Do I need to publically post every single DM i’ve ever received mentioning OSM? Should I record my whole life just in case it happens to come up in conversation anywhere? It is so incredibly unworkable. Nothing exciting is happening in these places, its not like there’s secret OSM takeover plans happening in private messages every day. If becoming a DWG member meant no more private conversations regarding OSM I wouldn’t have joined and im sure many others wouldn’t have either, I value having some privacy in my life. The private conversations aren’t about creating the next big OSM policy they’re about if this highway should be attatched here or here, or if you support heath or shrubbery.