[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13
Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
joi at betra.is
Sat Nov 18 18:50:12 UTC 2017
Just stop this.
This has been a fine example of how to decrease membership of a list
that should be productive and friendly but has been anything but so far.
On 18.11.2017 18:42, john whelan wrote:
> No you need to build up trust again and it takes time. Only then will
> your ideas start to gain acceptance.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 18 November 2017 at 13:26, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrakhan at gmail.com
> <mailto:yuriastrakhan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> John, not trusting a brand name and being unreasonable about new
> project are two different things. One is a healthy caution. The
> other is a baseless witch hunt, at which point it doesn't matter
> what the person does, what matters are the pitch forks and torches.
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:19 PM, john whelan
> <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com <mailto:jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> >There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of them
> might have broken the rules. How does that relate to the new
> tool discussion? The conversation was about the new tool that
> does things the same way as several other tools.
>
> How does that break "unwritten rules"?
>
> It relates to trust and politics with a small p. Your brand
> name is untrusted.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 18 November 2017 at 13:11, Yuri Astrakhan
> <yuriastrakhan at gmail.com <mailto:yuriastrakhan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> James, this is not about hurt feelings. This is about
> misrepresentation.
>
> Last week I re-wrote Sophox tool based on the community
> feedback. The new tool uses the same approaches as
> existing tools. Yet, somehow I violated some unwritten
> rule by creating a new tool? This is bogus.
>
> There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of
> them might have broken the rules. How does that relate to
> the new tool discussion? The conversation was about the
> new tool that does things the same way as several other tools.
>
> How does that break "unwritten rules"?
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:24 AM, James
> <james2432 at gmail.com <mailto:james2432 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Seriously this is what 2017 has become? A bunch of
> snowflakes argueing whoes feelings are hurt? Seriously
> grow up people, the world is not full of cupcakes and
> rainbows.
>
> "Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before
> and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM."
>
> I was somewhat following that email thread and there
> were many people sayong that yuri was unreasonable and
> that he was ignoring the rules for mechanical edits.
> Journalists are allowed to summarize the general tone
> of a situation without being perceived as "taking sides".
>
> On Nov 17, 2017 10:49 PM, "Clifford Snow"
> <clifford at snowandsnow.us
> <mailto:clifford at snowandsnow.us>> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend
> <ajt1047 at gmail.com <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On 17/11/2017 22:52, Clifford Snow wrote:
>>
>> Frederik,
>> I think we are all thankful for the
>> newsletter. And believe they are free to
>> publish to their own standards. However,
>> because they use OSM resources by publishing
>> on our mailing lists they need respect our
>> values. I don't think asking a publication to
>> be respectful to individuals is asking too much.
>
> Clifford,
> Being "respectful" is a two-way street. This
> is a situation that's been going on for almost
> exactly a year now. During that time this
> individual has shown contempt for the OSM
> community, including on occasion telling
> outright untruths. Conversations with him were
> very repectful at first (conducted in
> changeset discussions rather than on mailing
> lists), but it gradually became clear that any
> statements such as "I have already stopped
> changing any objects except" were simply
> worthless. At some point you have to call a
> lie a lie, and I can't think of a way of doing
> that without "being disrespectful".
>
>
> Absolutely. I'm only suggesting that as a
> community we strive to be respectful to everyone,
> all the time. That in no way mean that we condone
> bad behavior. I'm all for calling out such
> behavior even to the point of expelling/banning
> the person if reasonable attempts to get the
> person to change is futile. My basic belief is
> that all people have good intentions. Our
> community goal should be to bring out the best in
> everyone.
>
>
> Also, I have to object to the use of "they"
> and "our" in your comment. The OSM Weekly is
> produced by and for people from the OSM
> community, exactly the same community that the
> mailing lists are run by and for. The use of
> that sort of divisive language ("they")
> reminds me of a visit to South Africa back in
> the 90s, and not in a good way.
>
>
> Sorry for the poor choice of words. Now you see
> why I don't offer to edit or write for the OSM
> Weekly. My grandfather, a former newspaper
> editor, would have been sadden by my lack of
> writing abilities.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
> --
> @osm_seattle
> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
> <http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us>
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the talk
mailing list