[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

Yuri Astrakhan yuriastrakhan at gmail.com
Sat Nov 18 18:53:18 UTC 2017


John, are you claiming the entire conversation last week had nothing to do
with the merits of the tool itself? That's a very sad statement.

"building up trust" implies actions. Creating a tool that mimics what other
tools already do implies exactly that. Ignoring the actual tool, and
instead concentrating on the person is exactly what I said before - its a
witch hunt.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> 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>
> 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>
>> 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>
>>> 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> 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>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend <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
>>>>>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> talk mailing list
>>>>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> talk mailing list
>>>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> talk mailing list
>>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171118/d3bf5768/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list