[Talk-it] Una mappa migliore Fwd: [OSM-talk] A Better Map

Mer 22 Ott 2014 13:46:16 UTC

"I sistemisti sono pagati o sono su base volontaria? Nel secondo caso
bisognerebbe incominciare da loro ad assumere.."

+1111

Francesca

2014-10-22 15:10 GMT+02:00 sabas88 <sabas88 a gmail.com>:

>
>
> 2014-10-22 14:23 GMT+02:00 Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian a gmail.com>:
>
>> (Rinomino l'oggetto in italiano per attirare di più l'attenzione ed
>> evitare il cross posting)
>>
>> Steve dice:
>> * dobbiamo concentrarci sugli indirizzi
>>
>
> Certo, è là che c'è il cash $$$
>
>
>> * in 3 anni diventeremo la migliore mappa del mondo sotto gni aspeto
>>
>
> Solo se continuano ad arrivare tizi pagati per fare QA ed inserire la roba
> pallosa :-)
>
>
>> * abbiamo bisogno di board (per OSMf) più snello e funzionante,
>> possibilmente affiancato da uno staff.
>>
>
> I sistemisti sono pagati o sono su base volontaria? Nel secondo caso
> bisognerebbe incominciare da loro ad assumere...
>
>
>> Che ne dite?
>>
>> Ciao,
>>
>> C
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Steve Coast <steve a asklater.com>
>> Date: 2014-10-22 12:15 GMT+02:00
>> Subject: [OSM-talk] A Better Map
>> To: "<osmf-talk a openstreetmap.org>" <osmf-talk a openstreetmap.org>,
>> "talk a openstreetmap.org Talk" <talk a openstreetmap.org>
>>
>>
>> Why are we here on these mailing lists? Why do we spend so much time
>> making maps? I think ultimately because it’s fun. It’s a neat hobby
>> and we’re making the world a slightly better place.
>>
>> You need the right environment for things to be fun. Someone has to
>> install the toys in the playground. Someone needs to pay for the
>> slides and install the swings so that the kids can run around. Then
>> someone else needs to fix them when they fail and make sure you don’t
>> break your neck unexpectedly.
>>
>> In the past I’ve tried hard to make OSM a fun playground, by doing
>> things like taking all the warning labels off and letting people do
>> whatever they like. Things like open tagging or letting anyone edit,
>> which were crazy ideas in 2004. I’ve also at times been responsible
>> for it not being fun. Partly because I was a kid learning the hard way
>> and partly because sometimes you need to make decisions.
>>
>> I agree that in some ways OSM isn’t a fun playground right now. But
>> that doesn’t mean it can’t be again.
>>
>> We had a lot of fun with our swings and our slides. But now there are
>> a lot more people to join the fun from far away places and we’re
>> older. Maybe we now prefer bumper cars and video games to the old
>> swings and slides.
>>
>> We should keep the swings and the slides. People new to the playground
>> will still enjoy them. But we should also build a bumper car arena and
>> maybe a video game arcade. Sometimes we might go back and play on the
>> slide too. We need some new skills to build these new toys.
>>
>> Together, we need a mission and then a couple of course corrections to
>> make it happen.
>>
>> I think addressing should be our mission. We built the worlds best
>> display map already. We won. If you print out any OSM map of
>> practically anywhere, it’s the best. But we can’t find anything on it
>> without comprehensive and global addressing information. It’s the
>> hidden data behind the map we now need to go after. All the other
>> things we need to do are also good things. Diversity in all it’s
>> forms, faster servers, better tools, easier documentation and more.
>>
>> A clear mission provides a framework and guidance for achieving those
>> things. “Map more stuff” got us very, very far. But now, we should
>> focus on what’s stopping us replacing proprietary maps. And that is
>> addressing.
>>
>> How would we go achieve that?
>>
>> There are two basic fixes. Make the board functional and give the
>> board bandwidth.
>>
>> The board is too big. It grew for good reasons but now it’s just hard
>> to achieve anything. Seven people mean that if everyone speaks for
>> five minutes in a conversation on some issue, you use over half an
>> hour. In an hour-long meeting that means you can barely discuss two
>> things. Ignoring all the other issues, just the pure mechanics shows
>> you how hard it is to talk through something let alone achieve a
>> consensus. The board needs to be 3 people. 5 at maximum.
>>
>> Being on the board is a difficult job, especially as a volunteer. Most
>> people aren’t used to such roles. They may think like I did that they
>> need to please everybody all the time. They aren’t able to attend
>> meetings because they have a day job and other life commitments. The
>> board needs to meet in person regularly with a facilitator and also
>> have guidance about what it means to be on a board. We can’t expect
>> volunteers to naturally figure all this stuff out by themselves and
>> then also devote the time to also achieve goals.
>>
>> The board needs paid staff. There are a variety of things those paid
>> staff can do which the board can decide. It’s clear that there are
>> things that volunteers don’t have fun doing and therefore they don’t
>> happen at all, but are still very important for a functioning
>> organization. Having paid staff isn’t about deprecating volunteer
>> involvement, it’s about plugging the gaps. It’s not a perfect solution
>> but the alternative is to rely on companies to do many of these
>> things, and that really isn’t perfect either.
>>
>> In terms of the mechanics,
>>
>> 1. Change the mission statement of OSM to be something like “The
>> world’s best addressable map”
>> 2. The board figures out how to voluntarily shrink to 3-5 people, and,
>> meets in person 2-4 times a year
>> 3. Consulting with the community on exact roles and remit, hire 1-3
>> people [*]
>>
>> Together, we could do this in 6-12 months and finish addressing in 1-3
>> years. At that point we wouldn’t have just made the world slightly
>> better, we would have put a big dent in the universe. Nobody would use
>> a closed map ever again, and it would be people like you that made it
>> happen.
>>
>> So why don’t we go do that?
>>
>> —
>>
>> A digression.
>>
>> In Peter Thiel’s book “Zero-to-One” he catalogs the fate of HP’s
>> board. HP used to be a very innovative place and then it wasn’t any
>> more. Thiel posits that there were two board factions at a critical
>> time. On the one hand there were people who wanted to chart out things
>> to build and then go build them. On the other hand there was a group
>> who felt the board wasn’t competent to do that, and they should focus
>> on making sure all the rules were being followed. The latter
>> apparently won.
>>
>> What happened next is that HP's board blew up over wiretapping in
>> search of someone leaking things to the press. HP collapsed in value
>> making sure all the rules were followed while people who build new
>> things did very well, like Apple.
>>
>> Let’s not be HP. Let’s be Apple.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> [*] - I could speak at length on funding, but I don’t think finding
>> money will be a hard problem.
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk a openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-it mailing list
>> Talk-it a openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-it mailing list
> Talk-it a openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
>
>
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-it/attachments/20141022/beebc027/attachment.html>