Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Am 20.06.2011 09:09, schrieb NopMap: I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it. I've read the whole thread now and have some lessons learned: 1. You don't have to wear a suit to be incompetent 2. It's difficult and needs a lot of manpower to write a 2-liner: We've now entered phase 4 of ... 3. It's even more difficult to acknowledge that 2 would have been a good idea Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/2011 19:18, Jason Cunningham wrote: I think using the word pitiful goes a bit far, but it got the intended response. As someone who spends little time reading through the mailing list I would expected this important step to be very well publicised, and that does not appear to be the case. After reading a few of these emails, and not having heard of this Phase 4 before, I went to the Wiki Main Page nothing there. Main reason for replying was some of the emails implied it would be more helpful to actually find ways to advertise the change rather than go around in circles arguing about it not been advertised. I've added it to the News Section on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page but obviously someone who understands what is going on should improve what I've done and add an appropriate link (hopefully very quickly). Yes, a simple and effective improvement to communication. Thanks, Jason. The link looks good. I'll make sure any future license change related stuff goes here as well as our normal announce mailings. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz schrieb: The link looks good. I'll make sure any future license change related stuff goes here as well as our normal announce mailings. For me the preferred and most natural way of receiving announcements is the announce mailing list. Announcements on talk might get drowned in all the other traffic about the license change process. :/) Subscribing to announce should be strongly recommended to everyone. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
TimSC, Your definition of ad hominem is slightly wrong. An ad hominem is always against the author of the argument being criticised. An attack on a third party (e.g. my mother) would be merely an insult and can never be ad hominem. You do realize that there are thousands of people reading this list, from all around the world? Please contact LWG in private or at least move to legal-talk@, where all trolls go. Thank you. IZ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
You do realize that there are thousands of people reading this list, from all around the world? Please contact LWG in private or at least move to legal-talk@, where all trolls go. Thank you. Legal-talk = troll ?? : this guy/gall *is* funny !! Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Ilya Zverev [mailto:zve...@textual.ru] Verzonden: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 1:26 PM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual [GG] IZ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Tuesday 21 June 2011 10:30:06 Ulf Lamping wrote: I've read the whole thread now and have some lessons learned: 1. You don't have to wear a suit to be incompetent I am mainly amazed by two other things: 1. How many people are too incompetent to understand the initial announcement. 2. How many prominent contributors take the time to reply to this nonsense. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote: 1. How many people are too incompetent to understand the initial announcement. One thing you can generally say about communication is that when communication fails, blaming the receiving party gets you nowhere. If an ad campaign fails, you don't blame consumers - you blame the ad company. If a company-wide email fails to have an effect, you could blame all employees - but that gets you nowhere. I think the same goes here - if the existing communication strategy was perceived as ineffective, it's simply unproductive to blame the people reading those communication channels. You can personally hold that view, but people aren't suddenly going to become more attentive to mailing lists or whatever. Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 02:46:30 Steve Bennett wrote: but people aren't suddenly going to become more attentive to mailing lists If they can't be bothered to read the mailinglists, can they please also refrain from posting to them. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Hi! First of all: I am in favour of the licence change itself, I have agreed a long time ago and I was actually looking forward to phase 4 bringing forward some decisions. Nevertheless, the enabling of phase 4 (which likely may have happened yesterday or so) strikes me as another pitiful example of how not to do such things. Considering that lack of information has been the chief reason for disagreement with the proceedings for some two years now, one might have naively assumed that someone in the OSMF might have listend or learned and that important steps might have been accompanied by some sort of official announcement. Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider information to have was yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who claims he can't edit anymore. I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6494841.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Hi, NopMap wrote: Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider information to have was yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who claims he can't edit anymore. Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by Mike Collinson saying that we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said ok, we've really implemented it now? Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely published, was that not enough? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Hi! Frederik Ramm wrote: Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by Mike Collinson saying that we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said ok, we've really implemented it now? Yes, exactly. As you properly quoted or as soon... makes this statement rather vague. Frederik Ramm wrote: Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely published, was that not enough? A clear no to this. We intend to ... or maybe later contains no statement about whether anything has happened. I believe you noted the guesses and questions on the matter in the German forum yesterday, the question on this list... For something this important and controversial, an announcement on talk would have been in order, containing some information like will move on or have moved to. What's more, there's also no hint on how to (not) proceed with re-mapping data, as you suggested yourself, which will probably make things worse real soon now. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6494993.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de schrieb: Hi! Frederik Ramm wrote: Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by Mike Collinson saying that we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said ok, we've really implemented it now? Yes, exactly. As you properly quoted or as soon... makes this statement rather vague. I have read that to mean We will switch to phase 4 unless there are technical problems. Frederik Ramm wrote: Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely published, was that not enough? A clear no to this. We intend to ... or maybe later contains no statement about whether anything has happened. I believe you noted the guesses and questions on the matter in the German forum yesterday, the question on this list... How difficult is it to guess what happened if you have read the above announcement and on the following day you can not upload anymore and coincidentally you have declined the CTs? Or is anyone saying I know they intended ro switch to pase 4, but, when I could not upload I did not realize they really did.? If someone did not read the original announcement he probably would not read the next one neither. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/2011 09:09, NopMap wrote: Hi! First of all: I am in favour of the licence change itself, I have agreed a long time ago and I was actually looking forward to phase 4 bringing forward some decisions. Nevertheless, the enabling of phase 4 (which likely may have happened yesterday or so) strikes me as another pitiful example of how not to do such things. Considering that lack of information has been the chief reason for disagreement with the proceedings for some two years now, one might have naively assumed that someone in the OSMF might have listend or learned and that important steps might have been accompanied by some sort of official announcement. Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider information to have was yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who claims he can't edit anymore. I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it. bye Nop Hi Nop, As others have pointed out, an announcement with date was released on blog, talk, legal-talk ... with full details and link to the implementation plan [1]. Please also remember that all technical work is kindly done by volunteers who have other issues and real lives too, so I think or as soon after as is technically practical is not unreasonable? Mike [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 01:40 -0700, NopMap wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by Mike Collinson saying that we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said ok, we've really implemented it now? Yes, exactly. As you properly quoted or as soon... makes this statement rather vague. Frederik Ramm wrote: Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely published, was that not enough? A clear no to this. We intend to ... or maybe later contains no statement about whether anything has happened. This commit (tagged live) is a clear statement: http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/commit/0a81411e68102cd8a755744bd4a1e2f6eafad549 I can see your point, but: More communication means a lot of additional work and is not something I would expect from those who handle the other parts. What's more, there's also no hint on how to (not) proceed with re-mapping data, as you suggested yourself, which will probably make things worse real soon now. Quoting http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html Michael Collinson wrote: I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. I think remove is part of re-map and I agree we should wait until acceptances have been maximised. Especially as it is not clear yet how to handle objects with mixed CC-only/CC+CT history. That is kind of vague, but I would not want to be nailed down to any old guesstimated numbers later. Waiting until we feel that it is time is fine with me. Mitja ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Mitja Kleider wrote: This commit (tagged live) is a clear statement: http://git.openstreetmap.org/rails.git/commit/0a81411e68102cd8a755744bd4a1e2f6eafad549 I can see your point, but: More communication means a lot of additional work and is not something I would expect from those who handle the other parts. How many people in total do you think have the knowledge where to look for this commit? And it still does not tell you whether it is live on the server or not. A simple post it is live now is considerd a lot of additional work? Sorry, but I have the impression we are living in completely different worlds... Mitja Kleider wrote: That is kind of vague, but I would not want to be nailed down to any old guesstimated numbers later. Waiting until we feel that it is time is fine with me. Yes, extremely vague. I believe that many people will not wait very long until they feel it is time and will take action - everyone at their personal pace. Well, if it is to be this way... bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495364.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
- Original Message - From: NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de To: talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:09 AM Subject: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual Hi! First of all: I am in favour of the licence change itself, I have agreed a long time ago and I was actually looking forward to phase 4 bringing forward some decisions. Nevertheless, the enabling of phase 4 (which likely may have happened yesterday or so) strikes me as another pitiful example of how not to do such things. Considering that lack of information has been the chief reason for disagreement with the proceedings for some two years now, one might have naively assumed that someone in the OSMF might have listend or learned and that important steps might have been accompanied by some sort of official announcement. Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider information to have was yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who claims he can't edit anymore. I don't know how you feel, but for me it is very hard to remain supportive of the matter in the face of such consequent incompetence handling it. My personal opinion is that it would have been very hard for anyone who is interested in this to have missed what was going to happen at Stage 4, and when Stage 4 was going to occur. But that is on the basis that I subscribe to a number of the mailing lists. However I recognise that it would be wrong to assume that all contributors are subscribed to any of the mailing lists, or read the wiki . I would have thought that it was not a demanding job, though I'll admit I do not have the capacity to do it, for all the mainstream editing software to have a MOTD feature, and for official announcements which were deemed important enough to be posted to the mailing lists to be also flagged up as a MOTD. I also realise that I'm assuming that everyone can read English, since the feature becomes less simple to code and implement when you start to consider that ideally the MOTD should be delivered in the users language of choice. Now I can see some people arguing that they would not wish to be distracted by such messages, so if necessary you could build in the option not to display MOTD's if the user had ticked a check box., but if they ticked this they could hardly complain at a later stage that they had not been informed of critical announcements. Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing software. Regards David bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6494841.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap wrote: Well, if it is to be this way... ...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help! Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German community? It seems a shame to lament that things are as usual and not do anything about it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495430.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
David Groom wrote: Apologies if this feature exists in all of the mainstream editing software. JOSM has a MOTD feature. Potlatch doesn't (and won't) because it's always used when embedded within a website which can choose to display whatever message it likes: indeed, osm.org does sometimes display such flashes. I note that, at the moment, osm.org is prompting you on login to Find out more about OpenStreetMap's upcoming license change. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495443.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Frederik Ramm writes: Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely published, was that not enough? I got an email about it ... on my import accounts that haven't accepted the CT. It was reasonably well-announced to those for whom it mattered. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
I fully understand Nop. Almost everyone only guessed that it might happen but no one was sure about it. To volunteer with communications with the German community would require to get some fact rather than vague statements. Even people that have read all communications and LWG minutes were not sure about it. Next phase is much more important so I would appreciate a clear statement with a specific date well in advance. Richard Fairhurst wrote: NopMap wrote: Well, if it is to be this way... ...then maybe it would be a good opportunity for you to help! Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German community? It seems a shame to lament that things are as usual and not do anything about it. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495479.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:29:53AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, NopMap wrote: Instead, is guesswork and rumours all over again. The most definite insider information to have was yes, on IRC was someone with a test account who claims he can't edit anymore. Well there was an announcement on 14th June on this list and others by Mike Collinson saying that we intend to move to phase 4 this Sunday 19th June or as soon after as is technically practical. For anyone who had already agreed, this date passed unnoticed. What exactly did you miss - would you have liked another email that said ok, we've really implemented it now? Given that the clear intent to switch to phase 4 on Sunday was widely published, was that not enough? And a very prominent popup on www.openstreetmap.org saying that the phase 4 has begun - An entry in http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or something. I myself was not surprised that i was not able to upload my survey gathered on the weekend - i just had a small glance at the date to get known the first post-openstreetmap day Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Why not volunteer to help LWG in its communications with the German community? It seems a shame to lament that things are as usual and not do anything about it. How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere? bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495548.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Hi, On 06/20/11 12:28, Mitja Kleider wrote: Quoting http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html Michael Collinson wrote: I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. I think remove is part of re-map and I agree we should wait until acceptances have been maximised. This message has, by the way, also been translated and put onto the German forum by Kai, http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=12700 and onto the German mailinglist by myself: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-June/086828.html Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap wrote: How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere? Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495858.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 06:55 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a 'non-profit' foundation. Sure, they are volunteers, but if they dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly, then it only hurts the community they claim to serve. We're not asking the volunteers to write a novel for each statement they make during a meeting, we're asking them to document clearly and concisely what they decide and what they actually do at meetings instead of documenting major decisions or action items with a 3 or 4 word summary note in the minutes. Maybe if the role of communication by volunteers is such a major burden, an individual could even take on a paid role with the foundation to be a community liason officer so that we the community know what the foundation is upto and how/why they make the decisions they do. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Richard Fairhurst wrote: NopMap wrote: How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere? Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. No problem. :-) bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496031.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
David Murn wrote: Maybe you dont understand the role of office-bearers of a 'non-profit' foundation. Sure, they are volunteers, but if they dont have the time to do the job they volunteered for properly, then it only hurts the community they claim to serve. Indeed. And if they don't, you get to vote them out at the next election. That, of course, requires someone to stand. So how about it? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496063.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
NopMap wrote: Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6496069.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/11 15:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote: NopMap wrote: Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through? cheers Richard It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing problems and as for help from the community too. We have considerable human resources in the community and if people are over worked, perhaps they should delegate more? Also, it can be that someone tried to do something they think constructive, they risk the ire of someone else who believes it should be done differently. Credo experto - believe me, i've tried. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better. They're well aware that people have little time to help on a week-to-week basis for multiple years. Which is what they've been doing. There are indeed many resources in the community but they don't magically come together. You have to turn up at a workshop, to a meeting or a phone call. Everyone here is more than capable of that. You'd be welcomed and we would love your help in making things better. That's not to say every critique has to be met with a demand you come volunteer to fix it, but that is the easiest and quickest way generally to do so. I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before you make these kinds of statements. Steve On 6/20/2011 8:03 AM, TimSC wrote: On 20/06/11 15:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote: NopMap wrote: Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through? cheers Richard It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing problems and as for help from the community too. We have considerable human resources in the community and if people are over worked, perhaps they should delegate more? Also, it can be that someone tried to do something they think constructive, they risk the ire of someone else who believes it should be done differently. Credo experto - believe me, i've tried. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/11 16:03, TimSC wrote: On 20/06/11 15:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote: NopMap wrote: Yeah, sure, I'll just burn some incense, look deep into my crystal ball and guess what everybody has been doing. Why do you need to do that? Why don't you e-mail LWG and say: I think you've been having difficulties with your communications. I'd like to volunteer to be your communications officer. I'll sit in on your weekly meetings, draw up a comms plan, and be responsible for carrying it through? cheers Richard It would be nice if the committee would be aware of this long standing problems and as for help from the community too. We have considerable human resources in the community and if people are over worked, perhaps they should delegate more? Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made their own demands of the LWG ... -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Am 20.06.2011 um 14:49 schrieb Frederik Ramm: Hi, On 06/20/11 12:28, Mitja Kleider wrote: Quoting http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058727.html Michael Collinson wrote: I would emphasise there is currently no need to remove data from the live database since the license is still CC-BY-SA. I believe there is no urgency to do so until acceptances have been maximised, local issues that have a near term solution have been addressed and there is a sense of community consensus that it is time. I think remove is part of re-map and I agree we should wait until acceptances have been maximised. This message has, by the way, also been translated and put onto the German forum by Kai, http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=12700 and onto the German mailinglist by myself: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-June/086828.html For the German community, we have also published in the blog [1] in April a longer article explaining the background, the course and consequences. And in the German weekly note [2], we report every week about all the changes and related events of the license change. [1] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/2011/04/der-lizenzwechsel-bei-openstreetmap/ [2] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/category/wn/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote: I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better. So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we need a request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them ask for specific types of help because people with those skills can step forward. I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before you make these kinds of statements. Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to stop? Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to defend myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about this seriously, try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 15th June first. Continued discussion on this probably should be off the mailing list.) On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote: Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made their own demands of the LWG ... Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up? It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame me or LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing fingers, please. Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would help. We obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am told we talk people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with the LWG (and probably many other things I don't know about). This might be due to the selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: ruby on rails in development (I have never met a RoR developer in person, at least knowingly), and being familiar with the background of ODbL (which most normal legal professionals can't understand, unless they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.) Regards, TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/11 17:47, TimSC wrote: On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote: Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made their own demands of the LWG ... Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up? I don't know the Latin for shut up. It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the eleventh hour help with that process? There is a world of difference asking questions on a public mailing list and sending a personalised list of demands to the LWG that was long enough to be used as a cure for insomnia. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
I think using the word pitiful goes a bit far, but it got the intended response. As someone who spends little time reading through the mailing list I would expected this important step to be very well publicised, and that does not appear to be the case. After reading a few of these emails, and not having heard of this Phase 4 before, I went to the Wiki Main Page nothing there. Main reason for replying was some of the emails implied it would be more helpful to actually find ways to advertise the change rather than go around in circles arguing about it not been advertised. I've added it to the News Section on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Main_Page but obviously someone who understands what is going on should improve what I've done and add an appropriate link (hopefully very quickly). Cheers, Jason On 20 June 2011 14:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: NopMap wrote: How should that work - without concrete information posted anywhere? Ok. How do you fancy volunteering to be the person who posts the concrete information, then? You seem to be under the impression that magic communication fairies will crop up and make everything ok. It doesn't work like that. Everyone here is a volunteer. If you're not happy with the effort that other volunteers are making, you should volunteer yourself. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Pitiful-proceedings-as-usual-tp6494841p6495858.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/11 18:11, Chris Hill wrote: It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the eleventh hour help with that process? Ok, just sanity check here - I looked at subject line as to what we are talking about - which is communication difficulties and LWG and related issues. Part of the problem in OSM mailing lists is that discussions keep going off topic and this is even directly after I raised it as a problem. Given that is a significant problem, the question is how do we address it? I suggest list moderation (which is community lead, not by a dictator) and a high standard of behavior set by the community leaders. (Yes, admittedly moderation takes volunteers but we need to agree on a plan before implementing it.) Can anyone think of a better plan? Regards, TimSC PS I plan to disregard, as much as I can, all non-constructive input. I will probably only be partly successful though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
TimSC wrote: I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the skills to help out. Then I suggest you do it, rather than just suggest it. If you believe we need a request for help page on the wiki then there's nothing stopping you from: - Suggesting this page - Creating this page - Identifying people you think might require help - Collect their requests and add them to the page - Identify people you think could implement these tasks - Convince those people they should implement these tasks - Monitor implementation progress and update the page So far you seem to be at step 0. -dair ___ d...@refnum.com http://www.refnum.com/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
On 20/06/11 18:35, Dair Grant wrote: TimSC wrote: I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the skills to help out. Then I suggest you do it, rather than just suggest it. Doing things without discussing it might result in bad things happening. Discussion first, then do. TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
trolling ON Stop harassing the poor guys of the LWG. They are just volonteers carrying out orders of the OSMF. And after all: 99.99 % of our community was not addressed. And those who were addressed ...i tiny minority... who cares... they won't bother us no more trolling off Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: TimSC [mailto:mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk] Verzonden: maandag 20 juni 2011 18:47 Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote: I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better. So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we need a request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them ask for specific types of help because people with those skills can step forward. I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before you make these kinds of statements. Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to stop? Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to defend myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about this seriously, try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 15th June first. Continued discussion on this probably should be off the mailing list.) On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote: Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made their own demands of the LWG ... Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up? It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame me or LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing fingers, please. Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would help. We obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am told we talk people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with the LWG (and probably many other things I don't know about). This might be due to the selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: ruby on rails in development (I have never met a RoR developer in person, at least knowingly), and being familiar with the background of ODbL (which most normal legal professionals can't understand, unless they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.) Regards, TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Tim Chris is trying to gently point out to you, as I was, that you're the one who's sucked up the most LWG time lately and thus making your suggestions on how they sound their time is a bit odd. Ignoring the point isn't helping. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:25, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 20/06/11 18:11, Chris Hill wrote: It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. And exactly how did making a long list of personal demands at the eleventh hour help with that process? Ok, just sanity check here - I looked at subject line as to what we are talking about - which is communication difficulties and LWG and related issues. Part of the problem in OSM mailing lists is that discussions keep going off topic and this is even directly after I raised it as a problem. Given that is a significant problem, the question is how do we address it? I suggest list moderation (which is community lead, not by a dictator) and a high standard of behavior set by the community leaders. (Yes, admittedly moderation takes volunteers but we need to agree on a plan before implementing it.) Can anyone think of a better plan? Regards, TimSC PS I plan to disregard, as much as I can, all non-constructive input. I will probably only be partly successful though. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Pitiful proceedings - as usual
Tim An ad hominem attack would be something where you complained about what the LWG spent it's time on and I replied with a comment about your mother. Instead, I replied pointing out that you are in fact the one using most of their time recently. That would be called a rebuttal or perhaps a riposte, but it's not an ad hominem attack. Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:47, TimSC mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote: I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better. So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we need a request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them ask for specific types of help because people with those skills can step forward. I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before you make these kinds of statements. Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to stop? Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to defend myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about this seriously, try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 15th June first. Continued discussion on this probably should be off the mailing list.) On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote: Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made their own demands of the LWG ... Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you telling me to shut up? It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame me or LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing fingers, please. Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would help. We obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am told we talk people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with the LWG (and probably many other things I don't know about). This might be due to the selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: ruby on rails in development (I have never met a RoR developer in person, at least knowingly), and being familiar with the background of ODbL (which most normal legal professionals can't understand, unless they are specialists). I suggest as many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the skills to help out. (This might be a lame idea but at least I am trying to be constructive.) Regards, TimSC ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
