[Osmf-talk] Candidacy: OSMF Board

Ben Abelshausen ben.abelshausen at gmail.com
Thu Nov 23 14:38:57 UTC 2017


I think this is completely unacceptable, whatever you may think of Heather,
nobody deserves this kind of treatment.

And Simon, it's Severin who forces us to talk about form and not content by
bullying members who have the nerve to stand for election. He, sadly, has a
history doing this and it's toxic.

Nobody is saying we can't discuss a persons merits with relation to OSM,
it's in fact crucial to the election process, but treating people like this
is also detrimental to any functional community. If something like this is
being defended by core members of this group I wonder more and more what
kind of organization I'm part of.

This is another sad event that almost makes me ashamed to part of this
community.

Discussion, the more the better, but not this! This has to stop now!

Cheers,
Ben

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
>
> Am 23.11.2017 um 14:26 schrieb Pete Masters:
>
> I agree with you, Simon. My viewpoint isn't opposed to Rob's!
>
> Anyone should be able to publicly challenge and question candidates - as
> equally we are able to challenge the premise of those same questions. If
> Sev truly believes that our leaders should have one or ten or a hundred
> thousand changesets to their name, that's fine. I don't have to agree and I
> can respond as such.
>
> Actually this seems to be the time honoured deflection tactic that we've
> seem so often on this list: focus on the form (undoubtedly some of the
> adjectives used could have been chosen better), minor details and then
> start mincing words around that to move focus from the actual issue at hand,
>
> It should, IMHO, be left to the reader to gauge what is relevant to the
> discussion, and have confidence that they will ignore any irrelevant and
> superficial information. I don't think you'll find many that consider the
> editor used to contribute to OSM a particularly important piece of
> information.
>
>
> My point is that the language Sev uses is disrespectful, personal and
> hurtful. That's not ok in my book.... Firstly, for Heather - no-one should
> have to read that. And secondly, because this hostility *discourages* debate
> and divides community.
>
>
> I don't think we can expect everybody to put their criticism in a sandwich
> (https://dmh.mo.gov/dd/docs/tieredsupportsummarythesandwichmethod.pdf)
> just to make it more palatable to the recipient, and, as has already been
> said, its an election, the nature of the thing is that it is about personal
> qualifications.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:25 PM, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 2017-11-23 13:42 GMT+01:00 Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> It's a difficult one because if you stand for one of these two vacancies
>>> then you open your self up to challenge - essential for a functioning
>>> democracy. On the other hand challenging via the written medium is hard to
>>> get right.
>>>
>>> Thinking about TV interviews of politicians I can imagine presenters
>>> putting these same challenges to the candidate. I.e. they seem like
>>> reasonable challenges to have.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I haven't seen TV interviews where a journalist says something like
>> "you seem to know nothing about health care, isn't it shameless to offer to
>> be minister of health". (but maybe I don't watch TV enough?).
>>
>> This really sets the tone:
>>
>> > Seeking to join the board of the OSM Foundation with such a high OSM
>> profile is really shameless
>>
>> I am all for challenging candidates, but shaming them goes a bit further
>> than that. I'd hate to think that the best candidates for this election are
>> not participating because they prefer not to be publicly shamed in this
>> way. Sure, you have the right to say things like this here, but I doubt
>> very strongly that this kind of tone is good for the project. Just stating
>> the facts as you see them, might have led to a discussion about facts. Now
>> we're just going to discuss wether or not this kind of talk is OK or not.
>>
>> --
>> Joost Schouppe
>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Pete Masters*
>
> *@pedrito1414* <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing listosmf-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171123/fe4f5afc/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list