[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Sat Oct 3 15:07:19 BST 2009


On 10/3/09, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
> Matt Amos writes:
>  > forcing all mappers, editors and renderers to support it?
>
> Why do people keep saying that I want to use force?  From where do
> they get this idea?  Have I ever suggested the use of force?  Gun,
> knife, sword, empty hand?  Rejection of ill-formed tags at the API?
> Please, quote me on it if you think I have.

you've repeatedly said that we should have a leader and that when that
leader makes a decision "we should do it that way". you're not talking
about a recommendation, you're talking about a decree:

> If SteveC says that "mountain=green" means that
> first there is a mountain, and that "mountain=blue" means there is no
> mountain, then damnit, we should do it that way.

>  > if mappers tag the way they feel is best and the tool authors (i.e:
>  > nonames layer) consume the tags in the way they feel is best then the
>  > two will converge,
>
> Let me propose an alternative course of events which is less
> desirable:
>
> Anyone who asks how to mark a road as having no name is told that
> there is no consensus.  They might get sent to the Wiki page on it.
> That page gives no advice or too much advice.  The mapper takes no
> action.  The database has no tags, the tool authors don't implement
> any of them because the data isn't there, and the issue doesn't
> converge.
>
> I point to the +1 year age of the Noname proposal and recent
> inactivity and suggest that convergance isn't happening.

maybe there isn't a need for convergence here? we've got a nonames map
to help mappers decide where their time might be well-spent. if they
find a road which genuinely has no name they're welcome to add a note=
tag, or a noname=yes tag, or whatever they like. nowhere has anyone
said that the debugging tools available show all errors, or that
everything shown will be an error. as in most things in life, personal
judgement is required.

of course, there's always the possibility of action; why not make a
nonames layer which reflects your view of how the data should be
interpreted?

> I suggest instead that in cases such as these, SteveC should bless one
> of them with his Holy Water of Antioch (and the number of the tags
> shall be 3, no more and no less).  His blessing will tip the stable
> disconvergance in one direction.

steve is perfectly able to weigh in on one side of the argument or
other. where we're disagreeing is that you're suggesting some sort of
special status to his opinion, and i'm suggesting that, while his
opinion is important and valuable, there are others in the community
who are equally well-placed to offer good guidance.

> But for him to be able to do that, we need to not be throwing the
> "sheep" or "Furher" word around just because some people are trying to
> lead and others are trying to follow.

and i agree with you 100% - steve's contribution to this project can't
be played down (it wouldn't exist in its current form without him) and
this pervasive "steve is evil" thing is just weird and unhelpful.

it has to be said that, according to my german dictionary, the word
"Führer" just means "leader" or "guide". i don't know if there are
pejorative overtones to it in modern german use.

finally, for effective leadership there also has to be the opportunity
for people to *not* follow. if you want to follow someone's leadership
that's fine. but please don't try to compel that followership onto
others.

cheers,

matt




More information about the talk mailing list