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

[James]

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"  wrote:

> Andy,
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend  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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Yuri Astrakhan]

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  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"  wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend  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@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[john whelan]

>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 
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  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" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
>>> 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@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

[Yuri Astrakhan]

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  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 
> 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  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" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Andy,

 On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
 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@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


>>> ___
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>

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

[john whelan]

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 
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 
> 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 
>> 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  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" 
 wrote:

> Andy,
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
> 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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
 _

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

[Jóhannes Birgir Jensson]

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 > 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
mailto:jwhelan0...@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
mailto:yuriastrak...@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
mailto:james2...@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"
mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:

Andy,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend
mailto:ajt1...@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
  

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

[Yuri Astrakhan]

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  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 
> 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 
>> 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 
>>> 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  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" 
> wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
>> 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.
>>

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

[Ilya Zverev]

john whelan wrote:

No you need to build up trust again and it takes time.  Only then will your
ideas start to gain acceptance.


Oh come on. I've been a mapper since 2010, I've hosted dozens of events, 
I've written many articles and tools, some of which you might have used, 
I'm on the Board currently, and still my proposals and pull requests 
fail again and again, because there is no trust in OpenStreetMap. There 
is nothing you can to to build up trust. Your ideas will never get 
acceptance, it's just nitpicking and "unwritten rules" all over.


Ilya

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Effecting change in OpenStreetMap

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 18 November 2017, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> john whelan wrote:
> > No you need to build up trust again and it takes time.  Only then
> > will your ideas start to gain acceptance.
>
> Oh come on. I've been a mapper since 2010, I've hosted dozens of
> events, I've written many articles and tools, some of which you might
> have used, I'm on the Board currently, and still my proposals and
> pull requests fail again and again, because there is no trust in
> OpenStreetMap. There is nothing you can to to build up trust. Your
> ideas will never get acceptance, it's just nitpicking and "unwritten
> rules" all over.

I hope you are aware that with this you deny everyone who has ever 
voiced critique on any of your proposals and pull requests to have a 
competent opinion on the topic in question.

I understand and partly share your frustration that it can be difficult 
to effect change in OpenStreetMap because of strong inertia but most of 
the subjects we are talking about here with proposals and pull requests 
are complicated matters and it is always good advise to be a bit humble 
and consider the possibility that even if you have looked into a matter 
in depth and think you know what the right thing to do is there might 
be others who have a deeper understanding and more experience on this 
matter and based on that disagree with you - on the facts and 
independent of if they trust you as a person or not.

I have been in this situation from both sides - as someone who wrongly 
thinks he knows what is best and thought people should just trust him 
and as someone who sees the ideas of others and is aware exactly what 
knowledge and experience they are missing to recognize the flaw in 
their idea.

The key to solving this kind of problem is respectful and considerate 
communication, caring about each other's opinions and reasoning - and 
above all patience.  People are always more likely to accept and 
support change if they come to realize the need for it themselves, at 
their own pace.

And a rejected idea does not necessarily need to be considered failure.  
It is an opportunity to talk to the people who have rejected it, 
re-evaluating your assumptions and motives and maybe develop a better 
solution (or let others do that when they recognize the need).  I have 
seen lots of examples where a failed attempt at something created the 
impulse for a better and successful solution.

(Changed the subject because this of course does not have much to do 
with the original subject of this thread - still i think this is an 
important topic to discuss)

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk