[Osmf-talk] Candidacy: OSMF Board

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Thu Nov 23 15:14:32 UTC 2017



Am 23.11.2017 um 16:01 schrieb Joseph Reeves:
> Simon,
>
> With all respect:
>
>     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,
>
> This is not an OK thing to say.
Serverin has been intensely critical of HOT Inc for a long time, Pete as
a HOT board member, Ben and you as voting members, are all very aware of
that.

Every time, really every time Severin has spoken out about HOT in
public, people have jumped on his imperfect delivery of the message. Its
a shame that he doesn't improve on it, because it always ends the same
way, the delivery is discussed, not the message.

Simon 

>
> If people post on a mailing list on the topic of their feelings,
> regarding the conduct of another member or otherwise, you have no
> reason to either say that their feelings are invalid, or a "deflection
> tactic".
>
> You may consider that you have a critical input on wide ranging areas
> of the OSM ecosystem, but you certainly can't tell people how they
> feel, or claim that they're lying about their feelings for some sort
> of listmail gain.
>
> Yours is a worrying response,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> On 23 November 2017 at 14:16, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto: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
>     <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 <mailto:joost.schouppe at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         2017-11-23 13:42 GMT+01:00 Rob Nickerson
>>         <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com <mailto: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*
>>
>>     _ at pedrito1414_ <https://twitter.com/TheMissingMaps>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     osmf-talk mailing list
>>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171123/889c7ca3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171123/889c7ca3/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list