[OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
geraldablists at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 14:23:43 GMT 2010
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Johnny Rose Carlsen <osm at wenix.dk> wrote:
> Elizabeth Dodd <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
> > 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 [...] important
> [info] on legal-talk
Just a small point -- legal-talk is an open and publicly available list. I
suggesting and steering the discussion to the topical list is "hiding".
> Interesting topic and question raised, someone finds a reason to
> mention the license change, most of the thread from there is bitching
> about the license change.
> Unfortunately I mostly miss the real and good answers to discussions,
> because I end of ignoring 90% of the threads.
> If I am the only one who acts like this, then feel free to ignore me.
> But if this is somewhat common behaviour, then the talk list is in big
I too, am not fully decided on the license change at this point. I actually
_did_ follow a bunch
of messages where there was discussion about the license. Some good points
were brought up,
I'll admit. However, you are quite correct in stating that EVERY discussion
has these same few
points brought up, as well as general discussion and FUD, so that the
original posting and any
topics it has get lost in the noise.
So, you are not alone. Personally, I think the constant repetition and
ensuing flamewar does more harm
then any license change might -- and it certainly isn't helping the people
who are bringing it up all
the time to win my vote.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk