Disclaimer: This thread was split from an RFC thread, I did not request this split nor do I want this topic to be its own thread.
Right, I’m having a hard time assuming good faith here. A short paragraph about my proposal was published in WeeklyOSM, it’s not only biased, but it contains factually incorrect information.
The paragraph starts off by implying that my motive is directly related to the oppose votes on my previous proposal. It isn’t, nor does the proposal make mention of it.
The phrase “valid reason” appears in this paragraph but not in the proposal, it only makes mention of invalidated votes, this is not the same thing. I have used the phrase “valid reason” once in response to another contributor who used it in this thread.
The paragraph directly links to a counter-argument from this thread but not any argument in favour.
And lastly, the paragraph ends by saying the split opinion within the community is “not a good sign” for the proposal.
On top of this I was mentioned by name in the midst of this misinformation.
I don’t care on which side of the discussion you are in this thread, anyone should be able to see that this is an unreasonable amount of bias for a neutral newsletter like WeeklyOSM. It does not help that one of the editors of WeeklyOSM has been active in this thread.
I’m kind of done trying to have a respectful discussion and trying to find common ground[1], I’m not gonna deal with this kind of behavior any longer.
TL;DR: Please try to follow etiquette guidelines, especially parts about “Act in good faith”, “Be respectful”, “Be welcoming” and “When we disagree, try to understand why”. And most of all, please don’t engage in public libel (directly or indirectly).[1] Also, do you @spughetti intend to continue working on the proposal or not?
I’m having a hard time correlating “good faith here” (i.e. Discourse forum) with WeeklyOSM (i.e. there). Why are those two seemingly being conflated? Doesn’t WeeklyOSM have a contact link if you want them to issue a correction or retraction?
IOW, are you aware that this comment of yours is coming out as blaming random unrelated participants of this thread[2] (i.e. “having a hard time assuming good faith here”) for alleged lack of NPOV by WeeklyOSM editorial stuff?
That seems unfair IMHO. But perhaps it was just unfortunate wording; would you care to explain yourself?
So, are you actually claiming you were about to write this proposal completely unrelated to voting results of that LGBTQ proposal, i.e. that the thread directly preceding this proposal was just a random coincidence and not directly leading to this proposal? i.e. this one:
While strange coincidences do happen occasionally, surely you can see why many people (without having any bad faith!) might see those three events forming a causal chain, would you not?
Really, this much nitpicking?! Proposal explicitly requests a “reason”, and as far as I have understood it, you have more than once in the course of this thread (and in proposal wiki itself) indicated that for something to qualify as a “reason” it must follow certain requirements (i.e. must be “valid”, colloquially speaking). Calling it a “valid reason” sounds quite reasonable to me (even if you hadn’t used that specific wording yourself; which you admit you have done “but only once”).
Are you sure you’re not incorrect?
Those two links are admittedly close together, and I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that someone just casually skimming over the article might maybe overlook one of them; but if one is going to accuse people of wrongdoing, it would behoove them to actually carefully verify their claims first.
I.e. there are two links in that sentence “The reactions on someposts show a split in the community”, and one of them is pointing to your post (which I’d assume contains your point of view).
And yet you seem to claim that it only links to “opposing” post, which is clearly incorrect.
Yes. And is there a problem? Would you really argue that a mere 43% acceptance preliminary voteis actually a good sign for proposal that requires a minimum of 75% acceptance rate to pass? Really?
Well, as noted above, I didn’t really see much misinformation there. And IIRC, WeeklyOSM usually publishes online handle of proposal proponents. Is that a problem? Or incorrect? Or are you saying they should’ve anonimized your online handle because you made it similar to your name? I’m puzzled what is wrong with correctly attributing the proposal ?
This is not a first time that I’ve seen you claiming things that to me (as admittedly non-native English speaker) come out phrased as if you’re assuming your POV is the only reasonably possible one. I would suggest (especially as you seem to care a lot about neutral point of view) to try to phrase things in the future in such a way that gives equal chance to opposing opinions being right, as your own opinions being right – instead of presupposing your POV is surely the only possible one (or stating it in a such a way which seems to implies that).
IOW I do not see “unreasonable amount of bias” there, and such claims of wrongdoing seems to me to be driven almost purely by your not looking at the WeeklyOSM article carefully enough (and thus missing that they did link both to your and “opposing” message). You’re free to disagree of course, but it would be welcome if you expanded on why you think so.
Also, regarding “on which side” phrasing: I would really suggest to try to conceptualize that we are all on the same side – trying to make OSM better.
It is just that we sometimes might have different opinions how to best do that. Framing things in “it is us or them” mindset (as it continually seems to comes off to me) is not healthy, and will rarely produce good results. I would kindly suggest avoiding stating things in a way which is likely to be interpreted thusly.
It is of course your right to disengage from communications whenever you want; but I would like to state my opinion that doing so should not be done just because you seem to have missed the link in the WeeklyOSM newsletter (and thus inappropriately assumed bad faith), especially as things have finally seem to go in good direction lately.
However, if you’re still bent on not wanting to be involved in the subject anymore (which I hope you’ll reconsider, given arguments above), should we then consider your existing proposal as abandoned? Or do you intend to continue working on it as its proponent?
Instead, if you believe someone is intentionally breaking those guidelines, there is a button to report the post to moderators, where you can state your concerns. ↩︎
God man there are so many bad arguments in that novel you just wrote but I am not gonna take half an hour out of my day to respond to it so I’ll jot this down
My motive is what I believe is a problem in the voting procedure, the Lgbtq=* Revision revealed that problem to me, but that doesn’t mean I wrote this meta proposal “because” of it.
I used the phrase “valid reason” in response to a comment where you used it. It implies subjectivity, which is what I’ve very publicly said is not the goal of the proposal. Choosing to use this phrase is a massive misrepresentation of my proposal.
My argument that was linked was barely even related to the proposal where as the opposing argument was.
It’s not up to WeeklyOSM to claim whether a proposal has good or bad signs, this is unreasonably leading to readers.
It makes it worse that on top of this misinformation and bias they used my name, if this paragraph were neutral and factual I wouldn’t care.
No I’m not gonna endlessly keep assuming good faith when all the signs point to something else.
Idk what to do with my proposal yet, you’ll have to wait and see.
I’m not gonna be responding to you any longer because you pump out bad arguments faster than I can respond to them.
If it’s true indeed, then the worlding of your proposal is really poor. The proposal currently says the opposite: the proposer gets infinite power to dismiss opposing votes basing on his/her subjective judgement about the reason validity.
The current version of the voting instruction already says that opposing vote should include some reason, better of all some suggestions. However, it does not allow a proposer to dismiss votes, which is reasonable: no means no.
It doesn’t say that though. And if you think it does, why not suggest alternative wording? After all, no one here wants to give “infinite power to dismiss opposing votes basing on his/her subjective judgement about the reason validity”.
As a former translator for weeklyOSM, I can tell you that there are a lot of people involved in writing each issue, who usually write a small piece of the article. Each of them speaks their own language and is in their own culture. The English version is reviewed by an average of 1-3 people based on their abilities, time, attentiveness, and interests. Therefore, it is not clear why you mention that there is a weeklyOSM editor in the discussion, if perhaps he did not even participate in the writing of the article.
When you react to the words “valid reason” in this way, as a non-native English speaker, I open several online translators and see several translations with different emotional overtones, and I just don’t pay attention to this word and go to open the original text.
For you, as the author of the proposal, a counter-argument is an attack, but for someone it is just an argument for getting context in this crazy thread. This is not a defense of bias, but an explanation of why no one thought it was important to fix it.
So don’t assume that weeklyOSM articles are written by professionals. There are comments on the website if you want to report any inaccuracies, and the pool of authors/reviewers/translators of articles is open to everyone: info@weeklyosm.eu / https://osmbc.openstreetmap.de
p.s. If I remember correctly, you’ve already reached out to Manfred about correcting the article.
Someone’s linguistic ability and culture are irrelevant to writing a balanced newsletter piece that’s shared with practically the entire community. We also don’t know the source language of this piece, if it wasn’t originally written in English.
It is factually accurate that this proposal is controversial and that there is a difference in opinion, that is fine to report, however, it is skewed by the way it’s written (which Spughetti has already pointed out).
But what is “de facto” about it?. Obviously the key itself is “de facto” under this framework, such as building, highway, etc. But way about the key’s value(s)? Like building=yes or highway=residential?
My concern with de facto is more about what data consumers can rely on as the value rather than the key. For enumerated key-value pairs (i.e. a key with some small defined set of valid strings like the various highway values) the de facto framework may work well enough, but for “key-syntax” tags that often have incredibly variable values like *:conditional or turn:lanes I fear that a lack of proper definition for what are, essentially, domain specific languages masquerading as innocuous key values can only cause headaches for data consumers who may want to parse these values into more structured data. Generally syntax parsers benefit from actually having a defined syntax in the first place (ok I’m being a bit snide, but that is my main worry).
edit: and just to hedge off any responses along the lines of “well the data consumers can just define their own syntax parsers based on the values they see ”: sure, they technically can do that, but all you get in that scenario is 3 different data consumers with 4 different incompatible variants of what constitutes a key’s valid syntax. The only thing gained from being so laissez-faire is a bunch of time wasted and a lot of engineers with headaches.
The very fact that it’s not easily known who wrote that hit piece, or who takes overall responsibility for the content, sounds like a problem. If it’s a shared responsibility, then the blame is shared as well.
Yes? I do not wish to report an inaccuracy. I have no wish to be in contact with WeeklyOSM. I’m pointing out that everyone involved is responsible for the content they publish, with the way they’ve structured this.
The fact that the weeklyOSM brand is responsible for the content is clear.
However, all actions in the OSMBC editing system are logged. And so my question is, are you sure that the people who edited this particular article participated in this thread? My cursory glance says the answer is no.
You are automatically included in this list if you write at least one article in an issue or translate it into another language (unless you explicitly refused to do so)
upd: although I may be wrong in the logic of generating this list, because I am not on this list, although I wrote one article
(ok I’m being a bit snide, but that is my main worry).
”: sure, they technically can do that, but all you get in that scenario is 3 different data consumers with 4 different incompatible variants of what constitutes a key’s valid syntax. The only thing gained from being so laissez-faire is a bunch of time wasted and a lot of engineers with headaches.