[Osmf-talk] Losing faith
richard at systemeD.net
Tue Jan 15 15:04:41 UTC 2013
On 15/01/2013 14:30, Steve Coast wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 4:01 AM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems completely reasonable that CWG want to ensure that they limit
>> access to the twitter password to CWG members.
> Gimme a break, I founded the thing, didn't do anything wrong and was happily tweeting.
> All of these 'reasons' for taking the password away were invented post-hoc.
This is not at all personal and no-one, certainly not the volunteers of
the Communications Working Group, is suggesting that you have done
The tweet in question, which Iván referred to earlier, made us (CWG)
aware that we didn't know who had access to the Twitter account, nor any
control over what they were posting. Consequently we changed the legacy
password and decided to review how we managed it.
Keeping access within CWG, but being open to suggestions is the simple,
manageable solution we have arrived at for now. We did consider using a
multi-contributor system like HootSuite but don't believe we currently
have the resources to justify it.
Becoming professional about communications and presenting a simple,
consistent message is an essential part of growing the number of
contributors to OSM. Coincidentally as I was typing this, an excellent
blog post was published by one of the authors of Pushpin
from which I'll quote:
"People contribute to community projects for a host of reasons, so it's
a challenge to nail down how this should be communicated about OSM.
There are stray bits around that tell the story pretty succinctly, but
the problem lies in centralizing that core message."
That really nicely encapsulates what we're trying to do at CWG. We are
currently working on a major campaign for 2013 - the followup to
#switch2osm - which aims to get more people making their first edit. A
clear, focused, "centralized... core message" is crucial to that. It's a
big challenge and it would be great if your suggestions could inform this.
> Twitter doesn't work well as a managed weekly process by an
> understaffed group who take away people's access. Even the largest
> corporations don't make that mistake.
As per the e-mail I sent last night, we (CWG) will aim to agree any
requests by e-mail - i.e. if you or anyone requests something by
e-mailing CWG, we will aim to agree it there and then. Having it as a
standing agenda item on the weekly meeting is a fallback in case it
slips through the cracks. You quite rightly made the point (at the
previous board meeting) that a system was needed to make sure
correspondence wasn't forgotten about, and this standing agenda item is
a way of doing exactly that, as a direct response to your suggestion.
(On the up-side, I gather that all this has attracted a new enthusiastic
volunteer for CWG! :) )
[I've double-checked this message with the other regular CWG volunteers
and we're all happy that this reflects our intentions]
More information about the osmf-talk