[Osmf-talk] Will it ever end?
Johan & Marguerite
textline at gmail.com
Sat Dec 6 17:44:27 UTC 2014
2014-12-06 16:32 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> On 12/06/2014 03:54 PM, Marc Zoutendijk wrote:
> > Given all the shit that is now going on on this list, I'm more and more
> regretting that I just renewed my membership...
> That is a sentiment that is often shared and echoed.
> However, let us not forget that very often it is not really "shit that
> is happening on this list" but instead "shit that has happened in real
> life in the past", and shit that has often been swept under the rug in
> the name of trying to achieve harmony, looking forward, emphasizing the
> common goal, etc.etc.etc.
> There's a balance to be struck. We don't want to go over the old shit
> time and time again. But simply ignoring it won't work either; it's just
> like in any personal relationship where you will certainly not expect
> perfection but if you swallow too much without actually discussing it
> then there comes a point where you can't go onand you'll end up sitting
> on a relationship counsellor's sofa in the best case, or just break up.
> Most calls for harmony on this list have really suggested a good way
> forward - they have usually been limited to "now be quiet already", but
> I think we have been quiet about too many things for too long and that's
> precisely what creates acrimonious discussions later.
> There must be a civilized way to discuss shortcomings - even if they are
> shortcomings of an individual. There must be ways to say: I do not think
> that person X should be entrusted with Y because of Z, and there must be
> ways for this to happen in a factual environment.
I don't like the wording 'shortcomings of an individual'. Any person will
act in the best way he/she can. Any person believes that his/her behaviour
is okay. Others can think otherwise about that behaviour. The only way to
get cooperation is to give feedback in a respectfull manner.
Interesting that today Steve and Simon again engage in a fight. There are
differences between the two. Focussing on differences will not help
cooperation of these two people who have both done a lot for OSM and are
able to do a lot more for OSM. Especially when they would cooperate. It
could help when interpersonal discussions would focus on similarities
instead of differences. Like: 'hey, we both share our love for OSM' and
'hey, we both want OSM to be the best map in the world'.
> If someone has said one thing a year ago and now writes a manifesto in
> which he says another thing, it must be ok - it must even be desirable -
> for this to be pointed out and discussed, without generating a huge
> personal conflict in which one group shuffles their "+1"es behind one
> combatant and the other group theirs behind their champion. It must be
> ok to, if a person asks to be elected, point out reasons why that person
> might not be suitable, or another person might be more suitable. It must
> be ok to argue for and against a resolution that has been tabled, and
> occasionally it might be required to remind voters of things that have
> been said and done in the past if they are perceived to have a bearing
> on today's decisions. That's standard political discourse.
> I'm looking forward to suggestions. The simplistic "keep quiet already"
> has been proven to be unhealthy.
Agree, though I already experienced responses to some of my postings
suggesting that I had to shut up, our community is not that open yet.
A suggestion is simple: engage in the debate. And do not follow someone's
opinion just because he is Frederik, Simon, Henk or Steve.
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk