<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>There is nothing here that forbids usage of<br></div><div>Facebook, Twitter other proprietary services,<br></div><div>in addition to open services.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>17 Aug 2020, 08:35 by heatherleson@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="auto"><div><div>Hi I appreciate this effort. However, this has a risk of also becoming a niche and exclusive club. Many parts of OSM use facebook, twitter and viber for their communications.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I think we also need to also be open to the communications channels that OSM audiences and contributors use.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thank you<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Heather<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">On Mon, 17 Aug 2020, 01:05 Tobias Knerr, <<a href="mailto:osm@tobias-knerr.de" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">osm@tobias-knerr.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class=""><div>On 16.08.20 22:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:<br></div><div> > To me this seems to reaffirm something we're already doing at present,<br></div><div> > rather than change anything. Am I correct or would such a commitment<br></div><div> > mean that something would change as a result?<br></div><div> <br></div><div> According to working groups' responses and in my own experience, we are<br></div><div> by and large already practising this. WGs have mentioned some peripheral<br></div><div> room for improvement (CWG is working on mirroring some content onto open<br></div><div> microblogging platforms, for example), but this certainly isn't intended<br></div><div> to bring about any kind of major shift in how we do things.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Personally, I hope this commitment can offer reassurance that our use of<br></div><div> open platforms is not an accident, and will continue to be something we<br></div><div> care about. With a few proprietary OSM channels gaining prominence over<br></div><div> the past years, this has been a concern for some people, e.g. during<br></div><div> last year's community survey and in conversations at OSM events. I don't<br></div><div> want OSM contributors who forgo proprietary platforms to feel like they<br></div><div> are missing out.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> As an additional benefit, this step makes some of the reasons behind our<br></div><div> current practices explicit (to help people understand why we're doing<br></div><div> things the way we do), and perhaps it can inspire other groups inside<br></div><div> and outside the OSM ecosystem to follow along.<br></div><div> <br></div><div> _______________________________________________<br></div><div> osmf-talk mailing list<br></div><div> <a rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br></div><div> <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote> </body>
</html>