Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
TimSC wrote: Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise words to avoid "endless discussions" and go do stuff. I think it is possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere, at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I am not asking you to do much - I am just asking for you to lay off, please. I will happily withdraw when you decouple your threat to damage the map of Great Britain, by withdrawing your contributions, from the separate issue of OSM governance. There is certainly a debate to be had about OSM governance. It is something that I've discussed with numerous people for many months. I have several times gone on the record as saying that there are aspects of OSMF's behaviour that I have found perplexing at best and irresponsible at worst. This is a big debate, and needs to be approached carefully, not rushed. Yet Phase 4 of the relicensing starts next week. The governance debate will clearly not be concluded by then. Your fellow British mappers need clarity about whether to start remapping the areas where you have contributed. You have stated that you support a public domain licence: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-April/003273.html ["We would be better serviced in our project goals by a simpler license i.e. a public domain-like license... legal problems are almost inevitable with any share-alike license"] I also support public domain. I have placed my edits in the public domain, and therefore cannot disagree with these Contributor Terms or indeed any non-exclusive terms. I would presume you, as a PD supporter, would do the same. You have not yet done so. Instead, you have linked your acceptance of ODbL+CT to issues of OSM governance. You are the only one in the 30 most active contributors to Britain not to have accepted or declined ODbL+CT, and one of just three in the 100 most active. If you really want a debate about OSMF governance untainted by other considerations, please accept or decline the Contributor Terms. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
Hi all, This is in reference to the poll here: http://doodle.com/s2zg64vyaup72dcw An idea: can we try to make this discussion more constructive? I have tried to do so here, probably with mixed success. I am beginning to be burdened with non-constructive messages and we really don't have time for them. (If people are thinking of turning that comment on me, as an ad hominem, again, please can we be more constructive!) On 13/06/11 14:49, Dermot McNally wrote: It was put very succinctly by somebody earlier - paraphrasing, you know something is news if it's important enough that somebody other than the person who did it thinks it's news. That is an interesting point. It does avoid the obvious question, do you personally think it is news? But this is more of an issue for the community than me. Adam has chipped it to say the poll is worth putting on the front page as news [6]. In this specific case, this satisfies Dermot's point that news is news if other people think so. It is an interesting idea to ensure independence of reporting to have a link separate from the author, but in a "do-ocracy" of OSM, we perhaps might want some flexibility in this. (And we will always have a risk of sock puppets.) The main input on to that page is from the community, not me. Your definition of news is actually rather unworkable too. I am sure someone is crazy enough to agree that anything is news, so how do you prevent spam based on your definition. I have attempted a working definition below. On 13/06/11 15:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Do we all get to put our subjective favourites at the top of the supposedly objective list of News? Many intellectuals have pointed out that objective new sources don't exist - there is always a necessary slant or bias to any reporting [7]. Richard, as you are a journalist, I am surprised if you don't have personal experience of this? Recalling a certain US news network with the slogan "fair and balanced" and that ideal comes from a network that is very partisan. If you are unhappy with what I have done, I suggest you write some guidelines on how news should be edited. (On the other hand, many don't want rigid rules in OSM.) Until there are some guidelines, we might stop pretending the wiki news is some sacred cow. I think the news section is a bit dry myself. The fact that the number of relations passed an arbitrary number is hardly "news" but it was recently reported. I would define news (that might be put on the front page) as events that are topical, relevant to a broad international group of contributors, it has impact on OSM and novelty. A poll on the future of OSM meets these criteria easily. There are probably better definitions of newsworthiness that any of us have provided [8] anyway. Sure. I care too. I know people who've voted on that poll precisely to show that they do not support your current crusade. I've chosen not to vote for that same reason. Ok, I can't make you engage with my attempt to reform OSM. If we were being constructive, specifically for this poll, can you tell me how I can improve it? or is there some assumption you disagree with? If there was some documentation on guidelines on what constitutes news, Richard might have a point. Briefly flicking through the previous news items, they comprise things like statistics (e.g. 400,000 registered users), software releases, changes to the OSM website, new hardware etc. Concrete changes, not discussion. I can't see any precedent for an unofficial poll being placed there. Ok you have defined "news" based on what has historically appeared. This seems to be rather clunky to me because it keeps us stuck in the past: what we previous considered news is the only news we can ever have. However, for the sake of argument, lets accept your definition. And if we were to find that my post fits your definition of news, we can agree it is indeed news. Good so far. I looked through the old news, contrary to Richard's claim, there are indeed links to discussions and a doodle poll. Specifically [1]: 1) "Usability improvements for osm.org? Tell us!" 2) "OSMF license change vote has started; unofficial community survey at http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w"; 3) "[...] comments may be submitted until March 20" 4) "The OpenStreetMap community petitions Google to resolve the legal ambiguity of tracing from Google's aerial imagery." (Links to google feedback site) So it is clear that links to discussions ARE news, under Richard's definition. I am surprised you didn't find the above links, and I can only suggest you are more careful in researching your evidence. I am beginning to think you, Richard, are trying to censor and obstruct me, based on the following: 1. You have never edited the news template on the wiki before [2] but did so to delete my message. 2. You stated you don't "support my crusade" and refuse to participate, and apparently gloating that others are op
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > I can't see any precedent for an > unofficial poll being placed there. If you want a box to encourage > discussion (because, after all, maybe people have just not noticed the > 976234 channels we already have for it ;) ), maybe you could talk to the > wiki guys and get one set up. But 'tain't news. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/News_Archive 2009 Dec 6 OSMF license change vote has started; unofficial community survey at http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w I happen to have a very clear memory of no voting on that doodle. -- /emj ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
On 13 June 2001, at 14:49, Dermot McNally wrote: > > So I ask any interested parties and Richard: please respond with a > > definition of what constitutes "news" and/or some reasoning that it is "one > > person's hobbyhorse", otherwise I will revert you back. Also if you want to > > raise awareness of the poll, I would appreciate some support here! ;) > > It was put very succinctly by somebody earlier - paraphrasing, you > know something is news if it's important enough that somebody other > than the person who did it thinks it's news. In a similar vein, > Wikipedia takes a dim view of people writing an article about > themselves. IMHO an open discussion on the future of OSM and it's governance is definitely newsworthy and should definitely be somewhere that is prominent enough for as many people/mappers as possible to engage with. On that basis the front page seems a very appropriate place for this. Adam ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
TimSC wrote: > This issue not just one person's hobby horse - its an issue that is very > topical and very relevant. Think you're missing an "IMHO" in there... and that's rather the point. I can list plenty of things that I personally think are more topical and relevant. I'm sure others on this list have their own lists. Do we all get to put our subjective favourites at the top of the supposedly objective list of News? There are plenty of places where opinion can be aired in OSM. A box headed "News" is not one of them. > People actually bothered to vote, including > significant people in the community. This shows people care. Sure. I care too. I know people who've voted on that poll precisely to show that they do not support your current crusade. I've chosen not to vote for that same reason. > Also, OSMF > is actively debating this issue and it would be invaluable to have some > empirical data. If there was some documentation on guidelines on what > constitutes news, Richard might have a point. Briefly flicking through the previous news items, they comprise things like statistics (e.g. 400,000 registered users), software releases, changes to the OSM website, new hardware etc. Concrete changes, not discussion. I can't see any precedent for an unofficial poll being placed there. If you want a box to encourage discussion (because, after all, maybe people have just not noticed the 976234 channels we already have for it ;) ), maybe you could talk to the wiki guys and get one set up. But 'tain't news. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
On 13 June 2011 14:41, TimSC wrote: > So I ask any interested parties and Richard: please respond with a > definition of what constitutes "news" and/or some reasoning that it is "one > person's hobbyhorse", otherwise I will revert you back. Also if you want to > raise awareness of the poll, I would appreciate some support here! ;) It was put very succinctly by somebody earlier - paraphrasing, you know something is news if it's important enough that somebody other than the person who did it thinks it's news. In a similar vein, Wikipedia takes a dim view of people writing an article about themselves. We all have diary pages to publicise our OSM deeds that we think people care about. If they actually do, somebody else will post it as news. Dermot -- -- Igaühel on siin oma laul ja ma oma ei leiagi üles ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page
Hi all, cc Richard Fairhurst, I recently created a poll on doodle about how decisions are taken in OSM. I think this issue matters to many people. I put the poll in the news section on the front page of the wiki, so we can get a decent turn out and be able to draw some conclusions. Richard Fairhurst reverted that edit with the reason 'This is not remotely news. It's one person's hobbyhorse. By this reckoning I could post a "news" item every time I ask a question on the mailing lists'. [1] This issue not just one person's hobby horse - its an issue that is very topical and very relevant. People actually bothered to vote, including significant people in the community. This shows people care. Also, OSMF is actively debating this issue and it would be invaluable to have some empirical data. If there was some documentation on guidelines on what constitutes news, Richard might have a point. (Admittedly some would rather get on and map and I wish them all the best - I am by no means stopping them.) It seems like the poll is going to be more valuable than a dozen circular discussions on the mailing lists... So I ask any interested parties and Richard: please respond with a definition of what constitutes "news" and/or some reasoning that it is "one person's hobbyhorse", otherwise I will revert you back. Also if you want to raise awareness of the poll, I would appreciate some support here! ;) Regards, TimSC [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:News&action=history ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
