[OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:13:27 -0800 (PST)
Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:

> 
> [follow-ups to legal-talk please]
> 
> David Murn wrote:
> > I have no interest in the legal detail of the licence, only 
> > interested in talking about the ramifications of the licence 
> > on our map data, no matter how many times people try 
> > to derail this important issue to a legal mailing list.
> 
> It is nothing to do with "derailing".
> 
> The tagging@ list is there for discussions of how tagging impacts on
> our map data. No-one is saying that tagging isn't important: it's
> just a big subject that some people have chosen not to be interested
> in.
> 
> The legal-talk@ list is there for discussions of how legal matters
> impact on our map data. No-one is saying that legal matters aren't
> important: they're just a big subject that some people have chosen
> not to be interested in.
> 
> Please have some respect for your fellow mappers, and let _them_
> choose what they're interested in by subscribing to the right list;
> don't try and tell them what they should be interested in by posting
> everything to talk@ regardless.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> 
> 

You forgot to say that "talk" is for matters that mappers wish to
discuss with the whole community.
Perhaps you could respect this and stop hiding stuff which is important
on legal-talk where there are fewer subscribers than on talk.