Hi, Pete:
Yes, I forgot to say my opinion about the user who said he was
unsubscribing.
In my opinion, it's childish to quit an open forum, where anyone can
subscribe, just because somebody says something you don't like.
Specially when you see already some people telling you that no one can
control what others have to say.
If it was me, I would say it politely, like "I think not having a tool
to create squared buildings in iD is a pity, because if we had, more
squared buildings would be mapped". But what I, you or Dale think about
politeness is something that depend on many factors, the most important
of them cultural. Believe me when I tell you that I didn't find it
unpolite, and it passed unadverted to me.
We, the overall OSM community, are very gentle and pacific in general,
so we can govern ourselves without the need of any CoC. All this thread
tells me very clear how negative a CoC in OSM lists would be.
Are we confortable with that? We can tell him things similar to those
that others said already to him, in the way "what one person says,
whether you don't like it, is what one person says, but not what the
rest thinks. And maybe he wasn't meaning that he hates you, but he hates
that you iD devs don't have a building tool like JOSM". There are ways
to say the same better and more clear. But what I am clearly against is
to put him under the foot of a CoC. Only the name, CoC, scares me a lot.
I hope I make me more clear now.
Cheers,
Rafael.
On 15/12/17 19:39, Pete Masters wrote:
Hi Rafael, I see your point about the CoC and ownership of the list. But
that was only the third paragraph of Dale's email.
The fact remains that a person was told they are one of a hated group of
people and left the list. It's a loss. Are we comfortable with that? Is
it just the way it is and everyone has to live with it?
Personally, I am not comfortable with it and welcome further discussion.
Cheers,
Pete
On 15 Dec 2017 18:24, "Rafael Avila Coya" <ravilac...@gmail.com
<mailto:ravilac...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi, Dan:
The thing here is that hot@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:hot@openstreetmap.org> is, as far as I know, an OSM mailing
list, not HOT US inc.'s. I would find it weard that another OSM
mailing list was governed by the Red Cross, and that talk-es was
governed by the Spanish Government, for example.
Cheers,
Rafael.
On 15/12/17 19:11, Dan S wrote:
Hi
It does seem to me that more clarity would be good here, i.e.
slightly
disentangling the lines of accountability regarding the hot@ mailing
list.
Mikel's response has logical sense, but it's probably not clear
to the
average participant in the hot@ mailing list whether they are
automatically made a part of the HOT community. Whether the best
clarification is to have two mailing lists, or for the info page
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>> to make clear
whether
it is in general governed by HOT's rules, I don't know.
Best
Dan
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org <mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot>
_______________________________________________
HOT mailing list
HOT@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
