steve at asklater.com
Tue Dec 20 11:23:50 UTC 2011
On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:17 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 20/12/11 11:13, SteveCoast wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> On 20/12/11 11:09, SteveCoast wrote:
>>>> Did this go through any review from anyone? I remember there used to be a process for accepting layers.
>>> The layer was proposed to OWG and was considered by them against the policy guidelines set by SWG and documented in the wiki.
>> Ok Tom. Did this meeting happen in the pub?
> No, actually it was in the MQ office in London. I would add that we did do a secret ballot.
How did we end up with a power structure or community guideline or whatever where secret ballots at the MQ office on whether to put the MQ logo on OSM is okay, but open debate over thinking about a logo or design is fraught with difficulty, paranoia and clashing opinions on the merits of even trying something?
If it was wrong of you to put that logo on but this debate is good then we should change how you guys make your decisions.
If it was right of you but this is wrong to debate logos then I should just join one of your secret ballots.
If we are both right then I'm at a loss.
If we're both wrong then what is the better process?
Perhaps this is where the open part of OSM meets the closed part of "someone has to be responsible", however the feeling that there is some large double standard here irks me. If I'm missing something please explain it, I'm genuinely puzzled on how this works.
More information about the osmf-talk