[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 4 03:24:50 BST 2009


2009/10/4 Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com>:
> no one is advocating for error. you seem to be advocating for a tag
> with the sole purpose of not rendering something in a single renderer.
> to me, that seems wrong.

I use a similar feature in JOSM to show me unnamed streets to know
which ones still need to be named, I think potlatch has a similar
feature and if all three things used the same mechanism to remove
warnings about streets that have no name is it still tagging for a
single renderer?

> arguments or alternative actions, such as building your own nonames
> layer that takes the noname=yes tag into account.

I wonder if that is documented anywhere, so bugs can be filed against
various pieces of software.

> he's perfectly able - he just doesn't want to. i fully understand and
> commiserate the reasons why he doesn't, along with you. and he *is*

I certainly wouldn't want to be in his position, any time anyone
mentions something the vocal minority doesn't like they hound them, or
at least try to intimidate people into their way of thinking.

> we'll have to agree to disagree. i don't think that steve's status as
> founder gives him any special insight above and beyond his natural
> intelligence.

I think it's classified as first mover advantage, but I agree with you
founding something doesn't mean you are a natural born leader, which
seems to be the problem here.

> note that i didn't say "forced" this time, but i do get the impression
> that you're suggesting that people should be told what to do and how
> to tag. here are some more (potentially out-of-context) quotes, which
> have helped me form this impression:

Do you disagree that something needs to be done about all the dead
lock, if so what is your suggestion?

> maybe the community feels that such leadership advice is not useful
> advice, just as you feel towards frederik's advice?

Something needs to change, the status quo only leads to lots of the
same emails, so the status quo isn't working out as much as some would
like to think it is.

> you're the only one saying "anybody who takes advice is a sheep". i
> can only find 4 uses of the word "sheep" in this thread. the first by
> frederik and the remaining 3 by you.

I think he's referring to other threads, although I haven't searched
the mailing list to confirm this.

> then we're in complete agreement; steve (and everyone else) should be
> able to say what they like and give whatever advice they think is
> fitting without fear of ad-hominem attacks. also, that there should be

This is slightly disturbing, I mean if people have to resort to
personal attacks because they have no standing in logic it seems they
should be the ones being told to cut the nonsense out and this is one
reason a committee is a better solution in this case so you don't have
one person sticking their neck out waiting to have it swiped at with
an axe.

> no compulsion on anyone to take one person's advice over any other's
> on the basis of their position within the project, rather than the
> merit of what their advice.

Except the merit most of the time isn't examined if the status quo is
likely to be effected.




More information about the talk mailing list