[Osmf-talk] What's our USP? | Re: "Legitimacy from an election process to direct attention" – Your response to the question regarding Working Groups
Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Dec 13 15:53:25 UTC 2019
Am Fr., 13. Dez. 2019 um 15:44 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson <
heatherleson at gmail.com>:
> Hey so fun interpretation. I say everyone is welcome and ask for peace. It
> is responded with "taking sides".
>
it started with a misrepresentation on behalf of Michal who wrote: "OSMF’s
board has ...legitimacy from an election process to direct attention and
interest of the wider community of mappers and data users." which is in
direct opposition to the OSMF mission statement:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
e.g.
Core Values:
- OSM wants you to map the things you care about and will ensure that
you have the freedom to do so. This safeguards the accessibility of our map
to diverse users with differing needs.
OSMF
- Does not decide what to map or how to map
- Does not actively bootstrap community where none exists yet
- Does not commit the project as a whole to agreements with corporations
or governments
- Does not manage software projects
OSMF Board
- Does not drive mapping in a particular direction
- Does not decide what to map or how to map
- Has no role in setting tags
- Does not undermine the Working Groups by taking on tasks that could be
advanced by them
Christoph has already explained why the OSMF is not legitimated to direct
the attention and interest of the wider community.
As this is a manifesto for the elections, it would have been OK to state he
wanted to revolutionize the OSMF and its role, change goals and scope, etc.
and in this context enable the OSMF to direct the wider community, but it
is not acceptable in the way it was written.
Michal continued in his answer to Christoph "I see a vocal traditionalist
community defending an artisinal approach to mapping while the demands
placed upon OSM are shifting toward the global east and south where craft
mapping does not succeed at growing the map." with provocations like
"demands placed upon OSM" towards the whole of the OSM community (we are a
community of volunteers, and we are not responding to "demands placed upon
us") and against the Russian community in particular, as he writes "craft
mapping does not succeed" in the global East.
You did not write anything about this. You only started to comment when
Rory tried to bring out the discrepancies of Michal's statements and the
OSM project, with a dismissing "I know you don't mean to stir up
diversions. We are all here and are welcome." Diversions? We are discussing
the very core and values of the project. Can you imagine how hurtful it is
for someone engaged in this project to read a reply like this?
When Christoph tried to make you aware "You would be much more convincing
with such statement if you'd direct it at the board candidate who is
literally unwelcoming huge parts of the community here." you still
continued with formal calls for peace (in order to maintain the "image")
rather than acknowledging the issue, and now you are wondering why you are
called out for taking sides? Unbelievable.
Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20191213/47500cf8/attachment.html>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list