Just in case, make sure you’re commenting on the latest version of the article ;-)
2 Likes
As mentioned by @TrickyFoxy , the mention in weeklyOSM has been edited and https://weeklyosm.eu/archives/18886 now reads:
After there were three votes against the Lgbtq=* proposal without a reason being provided (see the discussion on the OSM Community forum about it), Spughetti, the author of the proposal, has written a proposal to introduce a strict requirement to provide a valid reason to vote against a proposal. The reactions on some posts show a split in the community.
vs previous:
I consider the updated one much better, thank you to the publishers.
13 Likes
I find it good too; although I suspect the OP still won’t really like it as it continues to talk about “valid reason” (which is term that exposes the fact that not just any “reason” will do, but only those which match certain conditions; and which is a term that OP seems to strongly objects to).
And it still link to the their post that they don’t consider good choice.[1]
Basically, about half of the issues they complained about do not seem to be resolved AFAICT 
But that is just my guess, I’d wait for them to give their official approval or disapproval[2] (and their reasoning thereof[3]) of a new weeklyOSM text.
and it continues to mention their name, but that allegedly can be acceptable in certain cases ↩︎
Or a silence – that carries information too ↩︎
I mean, we can’t have approval or disapproval without providing valid reasons now, can we now?
Yeah, I know this discussion is not a proposal process, for God’s sake! Notice the emoji? Still, if providing reasons is always useful there (as claimed) to the point it should be required, then that same principle should apply here too, and everywhere else where people are voicing their support or opposition ↩︎
Or, even better, avoid all controversy by not making any comment at all?
Under the heading “Proposals” just list the new proposals that have been raised this week, together with a one line explanation e.g.
Proposal raised by Spughetti, to introduce a strict requirement to provide a valid reason to vote against a proposal.
4 Likes
Yes, it could be as simple as that, if one is willing to think about it before starting arguing.
Or even simpler: without the proposer.
A step more: a link to the proposal page on the wiki with a diff from the previous week.
No opinion, no bias.
And useless, but that’s my opinion then!
3 Likes
if only that would be possible! 
Even that would be (and in fact, has been) objected to - you used the wording “valid reason” here which the OP explicitly heavily objected to.
But perhaps you are on a right track there: maybe weeklyOSM should provide just an summarily terse statement (e.g. “there have been 2 new proposals this month, and 1 proposal has moved to voting phase”) and make that a link to e.g. https://osm-proposals.push-f.com/ which neatly shows a sorted list of them with their statuses and dates?
But dunno, maybe that (while safest) is too terse. I prefer current form, even if the editorial summarizations might make it somewhat subjective sometimes. But, you know what else is somewhat subjective sometimes? OSM mapping![1]
Still, the universe hasn’t collapsed yet. So, I’d say current solution works well enough.
If there is a problem, report it, and it will be fixed (like the wording has been fixed here).
Don’t like the exact wording being used? Well, write your own submission to weeklyOSM and (provided it is not misleading/obnoxious) it will be used (and you saved some other volunteer the time to read the thread and summarize).
let’s start with
tracktypeorsmoothnessfor example ↩︎
2 Likes
You are quite correct! I just copied what was written, rather than checking the proposal itself! 
I should have put it as:
Proposal, raised by Spughetti, to require oppose votes to include a reason.
But then what is the point of the “news”? If there is no additional context I don’t see the point of having proposals in there at all, if you are interested in what’s going on read https://osm-proposals.push-f.com. No need to copy that into WeeklyOSM. The context only makes it useful for the broader audience.
7 Likes
Right, if I read your proposal I find:
Consider oppose votes that don’t include a reason to be invalid
you then go on to say:
- Define a reason within the context of a proposal to mean
a. Feedback that could be used to re-draft the proposal
b. The opinion that a proposal is unsalvageable, or that the proposed feature shouldn’t be mapped in OSM at all
c. A reference to a given reason that fulfills criteria a or b
Your proposal literally says that a reason must meet certain criteria to be considered valid.
5 Likes
Exactly, therefore the important last sentence:
3 Likes
TBH Richard when I subbed this article I thought it was being a little cheeky. On the other hand it is a statement of fact. weeklyOSM is written by a team of writers and the style will vary based on who chooses to write up a piece.
6 Likes
But then it would be incorrect / misleading, and thus others might complain – as Spughetti redefined the meaning of he word “reason” in that proposal to mean something else, and not its dictionary meaning.
And thus using just the word “reason” in summary would be problematic, as the main reason why the proposal is objectionable and has raised all the hubbub is exactly because of that limitation which reasons are acceptable and which will be ignored, and weeklyOSM should not be attempting to the hide thing that would be most interesting/controversial about the proposal.
So to me, the wording “valid reason” is much better choice than just the sole word “reason”, as it clearly indicates that the “reason” which must be provided is subject to certain criteria (without going into too much details about what those criteria actually are) before being deemed valid/acceptable. But then, perhaps little more details are needed to explain the controversy and not leave users in the dark…
So maybe something like:
Proposal, raised by Spughetti, to require oppose votes to include a valid reason, has been met with considerable opposition stating fears that giving such power to Proposer to disregard certain
novotes is both highly problematic from power imbalance POV, and also having undesired chilling effects on Voters.
would be simple and stil not excessively long, while summarizing the main points of the discussion. But by then we’re back at square 1. 
4 Likes
That’s not accurate though as the proposal has reasons to invalidate reasons so validate reasons is true.
This whole thread reads to me as a pretty good reason why the proposal is flawed as it will just be moving goalposts on oppose votes with regards to the validity of the reasons just as with the criticism for weeklyOSM’s wording.
I honestly don’t see any thing wrong with the newsletter’s presentation it’s not fake news. It just touched the OP’s nerve which is a shame but something that happens.
Édit : Just saw somebody else basically wrote this above oops
7 Likes
Dear all,
Let me do some public clarification
- The complaint started on Mastodon (where the question was raised about what could be done to resolve it, with no response of complaint that would help resolve the issue) - spughetti: "does anyone know who runs @weeklyOSM? An extremel…" - OSM Town | Mapstodon for OpenStreetMap
- It was escalated to this global forum, with no willingness on the part of the complainant to resolve the issue (again).
- Finally, it (re)escalated a bit further, reaching her OSM User Diary (which is known to have a larger audience)… the accusations are repeated and increased there and no disposition to solve the question (again).
- Her name is publicly mentioned in her proposal ( Proposal:Require oppose votes to include a reason - OpenStreetMap Wiki ), so why not to cite on weeklyOSM or other?
- Abou the email messages, there is another version that weeklyOSM editor sent a message and not received the reply (same behaviour on Mastodon and other places in the direction of do not cooperate to solve the problem).
I think this reflects the attitude of who complains in not to resolve the issue (since we’re talking about “good faith and respect”). So, I ask: does she want to resolve the issue or not?
If so, she can send a message to the email indicated in the OSM Wiki - weeklyOSM - OpenStreetMap Wiki (section “Join Us”).
Last words…
If anyone wants to know the history of the project and the team, can read the presentation I did in the context of the State of the Map 2025 (Manila) - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WeeklyOSM-stats.\_Analysis_of_the_weeklyOSM_profile_over_the_last_ten_years_with_PostgreSQL.pdf
Everybody can write and send your proper paragraph to be published on the weeklyOSM (avoid this kind of pronlem). You can send a LINK and a short paragraph by OSMBC system - https://osmbc.openstreetmap.org (focusing on news from the last week, but some old too because there is a section titled “Did you know that… ?”
The last but not the less important… weeklyOSM is a brand. It is necessary to be cited as this, (not initiating with capital letter). [P.S..: on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is with capital letter because the system of Wiki who changed the initial letter to capital every time you create a new item.]
I hope everything gets resolved soon and well. Best regards from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil).
10 Likes
I’ve responded to this on the mentioned blog post
Not sure why you’re claiming that I’m unwilling to solve the issue despite the fact that I took the initiative and reached out to the editorial team and pointed out the biased parts of the paragraph.
@derFred not sure why you’re signing off on this either as we spoke directly to resolve the issue!
Is this “she didn’t want to resolve the issue” narrative based on facts or just a method to distract from the criticism in my blog post?
I think their silence speaks volumes. I reached out via Mastodon in the hopes of solving the issue, then I reached out via email and proposed a solution. The idea that I’ve showed no willingness to resolve the isue is blatantly and verifiably untrue
The editorial team could have replied to the criticism in my blog post, but instead they’ve tried to deflect with an obvious lie. Lovely
1 Like
Please stay to the truth. You got a repsonse via email. What else do you want except wasting spare time of other volunteers in this project?
EFIT: typo
7 Likes
My blog post mentions said response, when did I ever claim otherwise?
1 Like
Err, like, just here a post ago? To quote:
Or are you unaware that most people might understand the word “silence” in that context heavily implies you have not got any reply whatsoever?[1]
IOW, “I got I reply that I was not fully satisfied with” cannot (in good faith) be described as “silence” (at least not in my understanding on English[2]).
(Just my personal opinion on where it might likely be coming from; and which does not require any intentional malice from the other party in communication for explanation).
And possible “arguments” in the vein of “Yeah but I wrote something extra in some completely different medium elsewhere and people should know everything I write anywhere before they should be able to infer the meaning of my post” (paraphrasing) is not an approach that is likely to give positive results, IMHO. ↩︎
I am not a native English speaker, though, so I’ll allow the possibility that I might be incorrect. See? I explicitly allow for the possibility that it is I who might be wrong. I would suggest that everyone (esp. in heated discussions) adopt that approach, and things might get much happier resolutions for everyone ↩︎
9 Likes