<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 2, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <<a href="mailto:seav80@gmail.com" class="">seav80@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">On Jun 3, 2015 8:06 AM, "pmailkeey ." <<a href="mailto:pmailkeey@googlemail.com" class="">pmailkeey@googlemail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> OSM's k=v design is completely a serious and unnecessary flaw. [...] OSM is 90% argument, 5% dead-end discussions and 5% progress. The whole is not a marketable product; it's not fit to be rated as 'beta'. Is this a significant cause of ex-mappers ? It's a flipping brilliant project but sadly lacking a great leader.</p><p dir="ltr" class="">It seems you are deeply unsatisfied with how OSM works. And your broad assertions such as that OSM is "not fit" or is "90% argument" are completely unfounded. </p></div></blockquote></div><div>I don’t know; there are a bunch of fairly key and active OSM people who unsubscribed from the lists precisely because they felt it was mostly circular argument.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Maybe it’s like San Francisco - everything was built decades ago and now it’s illegal to build things, so we just argue over whether the golden gate should have a suicide-proof railing or if rich people should be allowed to live in the mission or not.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Best</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Steve</div></body></html>