[Talk-GB] Discussion of Mechanical Edits

Brian Prangle bprangle at gmail.com
Thu Dec 18 17:25:06 UTC 2014


Hooray for Andy Allan - some commonsense!

On 18 December 2014 at 13:36, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 11:30, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I personally feel the current discussion is now thrashing.
>
> I personally feel that the opposition to Matthijs' work is becoming
> farcical. After setting up dozens of hoops for him to jump through,
> which he has done, and then because he managed that creating more and
> more, it's now in the position where people are proposing keeping
> demonstrably incorrect data in the database for no coherent reason.
> Moreover, despite all common sense showing that it never actually
> happens, we're expecting other people to spend their free time on
> meaningless, brainless drudge-work in order to fix simple typos by
> hand, in some kind of "well this sainsbury's might not actually have
> an apostrophe maybe it fell off the wall or something" nonsense. "Oh
> boy, I'm sure glad that all these typos are there for me to fix by
> hand! That's the /best/ use of my free time, it's /such/ fun."
>
> This mailing list appears to be having some sort of immune-response
> over-reaction. We don't like mechanical edits in general. Fine.
> Therefore every mechanical edit must be fought against, to the bitter
> end. That's an over-reaction.
>
> > No-one seems to dispute that we do not have a consensus, Can we leave it
> at
> > that "we agree to disagree". It is usual in such cases to keep the status
> > quo ante.
>
> No, that can't work any more. If we're going to build a successful
> community here in the UK then we need to cope with thousands of people
> having their own opinion, not just "no consensus" among a few dozen
> people on this list. Having every sensible plan derailed by
> "noticeable opposition" is not a scalable policy either. This concept
> of regional "opt-outs" is also badly thought through, since nobody is
> "in charge" of a particular area (no matter how much they might strut
> around on the lists) and encouraging people to self-appoint as having
> area-based vetoes builds the opposite of the community that we're
> trying to build.
>
> I'd like to encourage everyone to step back, and think of a better way
> to organize ourselves. This isn't it.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20141218/67019be7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list