<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I'm in the anti Slack camp. I don't use Slack for anything
else. I don't want to use it for this either when we have better
options. We have mailing lists, the wiki, and the forum. I
never got the memo that Slack was the main discussion app.
<br>
Based on this thread there is obviously no consensus right now to
use Slack as the prime discussion media.
<br>
<br>
Email is easy, I'm not sure why the resistance to that. With a
decent email app it's easy to view as threaded. No, you don't
have to get notification for every email. No, you shouldn't reply
individually (reply to list). You don't have to read everything,
it's easy to ignore/delete what's isn't relevant to you. The
forum (forum.openstreetmap.org) would be easy, but the US thread
doesn't get used much. The wiki is clumsy and probably should be
relegated to voting and the final document.
<br>
<br>
I think all of the different discussion media are
counterproductive and only serve to make chaos. I think there
needs to be a poll or a vote for the prime discussion forum and
the active members should abide by that and encourage the use of
that forum. I'll join Slack if that's what the consensus is. I
hope the Slackers move on if that's what the consensus is.
Obviously we can't stop the discussion on other sites, but focus
the serious stuff in one place.
<br>
<br>
I'm open to options, but the current chaos is absurd.
<br>
<br>
Brad
<br>
<br>
On 10/10/21 1:04 PM, stevea wrote:
<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">On Sat, Oct 9, 2021
at 9:55 AM Frederik Ramm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:frederik@remote.org"><frederik@remote.org></a>
wrote:
<br>
whichever medium you choose you'll exclude some people who refuse
to use it. As long as it remains informal and you're not later
told "this was agreed on Slack" I guess it's ok.
<br>
On Sat, October 9, 2021 at 12:06:17 PM PDT Zeke Farwell <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ezekielf@gmail.com"><ezekielf@gmail.com></a>
wrote:
<br>
Absolutely. Currently the number of US mappers active on Slack is
far greater than those active on this mailing list. So Slack is
currently the inclusive place for discussions to happen among the
US mapper community. Despite the smaller number of active
subscribers on this list, I did think it was important to post a
message here as well in case there were interested folks who
aren't also on Slack. To really cover all the bases I would need
to post on the OpenStreetMap Reddit, Discord, Telegram, forum, and
probably other places as well.
<br>
</blockquote>
While the effect I might create here and now by posting feels to be
likely quite minimal, I feel compelled to say so anyway: please
allow me to express my disappointment in what I see as the
more-and-more widespread use of non-open (proprietary, commercial)
methods of communication in OSM.
<br>
<br>
I have referred to Slack as a "secret sauce walkie-talkie" before
and do not use it at all, neither for OSM communication /
collaboration nor any other purpose. Why? Because it seems (to me,
obviously not others) that something proprietary and requiring a
legal agreement with an onerous license (UNlike ODbL which is
sensible and not onerous) is inconsistent with the spirit of OSM.
That said, it does appear that many use Slack for OSM collaboration,
and because I appear to be a "refusenik" regarding Slack, I miss out
on what is communicated via its closed platform. Frederick is
correct ("whichever medium you choose you'll exclude some
people..."), but he doesn't have to be correct forever in this
regard.
<br>
<br>
I get a lot done with talk lists and our wiki, two comm-techs which
are open and "free" (in both senses). Others find these to be
insufficient and like or even prefer the interactivity that Slack
provides.
<br>
<br>
Zeke is correct in his exasperation (that we share) of "OSM Reddit,
Discord, Telegram, forum and probably other places as well" being so
scattered: it seems everybody wants "in on" the (transparent)
method of "capturing" (and OWNING) communication via a proprietary
platform. Yes, this is a longer term issue for OSM to "solve," but
I continue to believe that there is an open source / open data
method for these kinds of communications that OSM might
"standardize" upon. For example, Zoom, while proprietary, has an
open source complement in Jitsi (fully web-based, meaning it doesn't
suffer from "Windows but not Mac, Android but not iOS..." sorts of
issues), with perhaps 80% to 85% of feature set overlap (not bad).
I have not examined the universe of potential open source candidates
that might realistically similarly complement Slack, but I'm certain
that (over the longer term) OSM can move towards such a platform. I
have used (sometimes open, but alas, obsolete by now, usually
closed, while employed by companies that use them) such
collaboration software for decades: no matter how "seemingly crude"
the technology (and we are not "crude" today, except perhaps by
future standards), there is ALWAYS a method to do this. It usually
takes some dedicated software development and ongoing maintenance,
but the open source / open data community often, maybe even usually,
is able to fill these niches where they appear (like here).
<br>
<br>
Much as there is a US Trails Working group, (this is crossposted to
talk; its origin is talk-us), there might be a "Real-time
collaboration open software" group. Well, I can hope, anyway. Is
anybody up for spearheading this clearly longer-term endeavor for
our project? I seriously dislike the continuing trend I see in OSM
of us handing over our rights and data (via Slack's onerous
licensing agreement, for example) to private companies rather than
keeping them open, like they deserve to be.
<br>
<br>
SteveA
<br>
OSM Contributor (since 2009)
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Talk-us mailing list
</body>
</html>