[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Balance of power (was: Re: How to vote to match your view)
steve at asklater.com
Sat Dec 6 16:03:47 UTC 2014
We can agree to disagree that taking access away to a resource like Twitter is okay. It doesn't feel ok in an open project, and the solution of emailing a committee to send a tweet feels cumbersome. The actual solution of grouptweet feels like it works for everyone, including giving the accountability you wanted. Still sad you left over it.
> On Dec 6, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemeD.net> wrote:
> [Apologies to talk@ readers for this follow-up to a post on osmf-talk at . I'm not an OSMF member and therefore can't post to osmf-talk@, but as I'm being spoken about over there, I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond.]
> Steve Coast wrote:
>> See, there was no group that "mobbed" Richard out the board. The CWG
>> took away Twitter access from everyone without any consultation,
>> thinking Ivan's tweet was mine. I asked for it back, used every
>> channel as I outlined. Richard sadly quit feeling CWG was being
>> overpowered by the board but that's not what happened. The CWG took
>> Twitter away from the people using it without talking to anyone, then
>> was surprised this wasn't okay.
> For the record:
> Communications Working Group didn't think Ivan's tweet was yours. We genuinely didn't know who had sent it. (From what I remember of the content of the tweet, it didn't appear to be from a native English speaker, and at first I thought it might have been Emilie.)
> At the time, CWG was aiming for a step change in our communications. In particular, we were aiming to follow up our very successful switch2osm campaign, and were in the early stages of planning a second campaign aimed at recruiting new mappers.
> A large part of that was professionalising our message - bringing sharper focus to OSM's outbound communications, to consistently push the message that mapping was accessible, enjoyable, and made a difference. Basic marketing and not the sort of thing that should come as a surprise to anyone.
> To get this focused message across, we needed to ensure that everything going out on our Twitter, Facebook and Google+ accounts was in line. In an ideal world we would like to have drawn up simple house style and messaging guidelines (again, marketing 101) for those with access.
> However, our hand was forced by this badly phrased tweet, from persons unknown, endorsing a map which failed to attribute OSM (years later, I can't even remember what map it was!). Changing the Twitter password and asking those who wanted a message to go out to contact us, which is what we did, seemed the easiest and most sensible short-term measure.
> Unfortunately you decided to take this as a personal affront, when no such affront was intended, and to campaign volubly for CWG's work to be overruled because of this.
> There is absolutely no personal animus in this. Sure, I disagree with you on many things, but you're an engaging guy to chat to over a pint and I have no doubt we'll do so again some time. But let me make it clear that I did not quit because "CWG was being overpowered by the board". I quit because it was clear that there was no likelihood of improving OSM through the Foundation, in any fashion, when well-intentioned, industrious, and skilled volunteer work could be overturned by emotive say-so.
> I see no sign that this has changed, and that is why I have no intention of rejoining the Foundation.
> As a postscript, I believe switch2osm was the last substantial marketing effort that OSMF has done. All the good publicity for OSM since then has been from third parties, particularly Mapbox. Progress in OSM happens despite the Foundation, not because of it.
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the osmf-talk