On 5 Mar 2009, at 00:14, Nop wrote: > > Hi! > > SteveC schrieb: >> We've not always done a great job of communicating for a variety of >> reasons but it was never with malice. > > But you have actually succeeded in making quite a number of people > suspect malice - and warn others about that. > > I do not agree, but I think it is a natural reaction, especially in > a community concerned about freedom: > - You keep me in the dark and suprise me > - You try to force my consent while I have had no chance to inform > myself
Yeah I'm still baffled by this one... where have I or the license working group tried to force any consent? I think we've been clear again and again that the whole process is up for discussion. > => What are you hiding? What are you up to? Sorry my satanic portal has just opened up again and 6 legged dinosaur- monkey-spiders have charged through screaming... > I don't know you. And I had to google to check your affiliation with > OSMF. I have no reason to trust you. I have no reason to suspect you > of malice. But your repeated "Not our job" statements towards this > matter worries me a lot. Yeah I'm just a total idiot and you shouldn't trust me because I want your brains. nom nom nom. I only said it's not our job to back up what russ said about there being lots of things you don't know and we can't figure them all out for you. > It is your initiative. It is your job. And if you don't do a better > job of including the community and breaking the news in an > acceptable way to everybody really quick, I fear desaster. You are > inviting hundreds of "No" decisions just because of bad information > policy. You can keep blaming me personally for everything. I think when Eve ate that apple it was also my fault.... at least I think so. Or you could help build the process now. >>> This is the first time an ordinary OSM member had a chance to get >>> notice >>> of the licence change and I bet you that there are 80000 account >>> holders >>> who still have no idea that anything is going on - so the process is >>> just starting now. And we still have failed to give notice and >>> understandable (translated) information to the majority of >>> participants. >> I want to correct something here, there is this view of 100,000 >> users needing consent. The number is in fact far smaller for people >> who ever made an edit (about 30% of the users). It's vastly smaller >> still for anyone who has edited anything significant. It's an >> easier problem than you might think, is what I'm saying. Far easier >> than convincing you I don't have a satanic portal in my basement. > > You know what you're saying? You don't care about 100000 people who > are interested or want to contribute, you just care about the data > of the 8000 (?) who have substantially contributed? No that's your mad interpretation of what I said. Mad. > This is a community. This is about people. At least it should be. Look I invented that, and I concentrated on the people and not the technology from the very beginning which is why this project succeeded where others didn't. > Can't you understand why people do not trust you and suspect you are > just out to grab their work when you argue like this? Of course I can, it's called paranoia. You all attack me when I haven't even been the one responsible for the communications, that was Mikel and Grant. You don't even spend the 2.6 seconds required to think that there is a working group and a board and they might be responsible as well. No no no, it's all steve and his satanic portal. Mwahahhaha. Best Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk