<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Tom Hughes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tom@compton.nu" target="_blank">tom@compton.nu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On 16/05/13 13:05, Richard Weait wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Sorry that you didn't get an ad on the front page then. Obviously you would now, because the policy has changed.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If policy has changed then could somebody please document what the new policy is so that I am able to apply it when considering your request?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That would be nice. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Please stop trying to drag me into your ridiculous argument. You know as well as I do that you are just trying to make some sort of point with this request because the CWG vote on Monday didn't go the way you wanted.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, I'm trying to grow the local community for the benefit of the OpenStreetMap community at large. I support the CWG decision. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The truly silly thing is that the CWG vote didn't actually have anything to do with the ads getting deployed, because I had already done that a hour or two earlier, based on the fact that discussion had petered out, time was somewhat of the essence, and nobody had objected to my suggestion the day before that I merge the pull request to add the two ads in random rotation.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ah, then there will be no problem with adding one more to the rotation. <br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In any event there is clearly a difference between advertising an annual conference that expects to have hundreds of delegates and advertising regular small scale meetups - whether the event has a geographical scope in the title is clearly not the only thing that any policy would need to consider.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>So you'll only place ads for non-recurring events? Or that events should only have ads once they expect attendance >n when it could be argued that they don't need an ad? :-) You think the aggregate influence of multiple events should be disregarded? That sounds strange in the context of somebody who adds pubs to the map one at a time over the course of years. But then, I'm an anti-importist. :-) <br>
<br></div><div>And I'm certain that we'll have higher attendance numbers once our ad is up. <br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
But anyway, the summary is that I do not want, and do not intend to become, any sort of referee in this ridiculous pissing contest.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br></font></span></blockquote><div> </div></div>
Sorry, I'm not interested in such a contest. Please deploy the ad promptly. Time is of the essence. I'm sure other events will want and deserve prominent front page ad placement soon, as well. <br></div></div>