[Talk-us] OSM US Trails Working Group

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 10:15 2021-10-12, Simon Poole đã viết:
> 
> 
> Am 12. Oktober 2021 11:37:51 MESZ schrieb Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>:
>> Vào lúc 12:45 2021-10-10, Simon Poole đã viết:
>>> A rather large effort was put in to advertising and moving any discussion of importance there, it definitely wasn't the case that a community had organically grown up around slack (as can be argued for use of non open communication media in South America and elsewhere). In any case what was done once, can be done again.
>>
>> I don't understand how one could arrive at this characterization of the community on OSMUS Slack as being somehow inorganic (artificial? inauthentic?) without having joined the workspace to see for oneself.
> 
> I don't either. Which is not a surprise as, because as you can read above, I was referring to the way the communities grew or rather were grown, starting off with the OSM-US board decision that started the whole thing.

Whatever decision you're referring to must've happened long before I 
joined OSMUS as a member or even signed up for Slack. I'm not 
particularly interested in relitigating long-past decisions like that. 
But I am interested in making sure the community of mappers in the U.S., 
wherever we are, can continue making progress on map-related issues such 
as trail tagging without getting bogged down by (duly noted) procedural 
concerns that we can figure out in parallel.

Folks on Slack have already recognized the need to engage with mappers 
who aren't on Slack. On topics such as road classification and now trail 
access tagging, they've made good-faith efforts to share points of 
discussion with the broader community by posting to this list, the wiki, 
and diaries and reaching out to individual mappers via osm.org DMs. 
Those who prefer low-volume lists such as talk-us will surely appreciate 
the difficulty and value of summarizing hundred-plus-comment-long chat 
threads in a more digestible format relatively free of emoji.

Elsewhere in this thread, there was an example of Slack being cited more 
vaguely as justification for an edit. The broader point is that if 
something is likely to be contentious, it should be justified more 
thoroughly than a link to a conversation in Slack or Discord -- or a 
vague reference to osm.org DMs and private e-mail. We can establish that 
expectation without placing artificial limits on how mappers stay in 
touch with each other.

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us