this made my day :-) As OSM has gone on I've found more and more that I'm attacked when people simply don't listen (I got flames in David Earls talk at SOTM when I said 'tag equivalences were going to be part of the original tagging system', people flamed me saying they thought that me hating tag equivalences was really bad, not listening that I said they were probably a good idea and part of the original ideas for the system!).... so it's good to finally be attacked for my fake self's pronouncements.
The next logical step is for someone to start posting to the list with my email address. At least then it's deniable when I change my mind :-) On Jul 14, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > Am 14.07.2010 11:08, schrieb Andy Allan: >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamp...@googlemail.com> >> wrote: > >>> See what our (IMHO not so) respectful OSMF chairman and project founder >>> Steve C had to say about license (working group) critics in December 2009: >>> >>> http://fakestevec.blogspot.com/2009/12/fable.html >> >> That wasn't written by Steve Coast, the "fake" blog is written by >> other people and is supposed to be satirical, but in this case is >> clearly attacking other members of the community. One of the >> characters is clearly based on you. I don't find it very funny or >> constructive. >> >> Steve Coast actually posts at the following blogs: >> http://www.opengeodata.org/ (with others) >> http://blog.stevecoast.com/ > > Deep apologies to Steve C that I accused him about things he didn't do. It's > really not my style to falsely accuse people - seems I really got a wrong > impression about that blog. > >>> I had hoped that after the dust settled a bit the OSMF learned from these >>> discussions, but reading the above legal talk thread I still see the same >>> elitist behaviour from the "inner circle" as before - very sad to see :-( >> >> It's a shame that you feel there's an "inner circle". It's worth >> bearing in mind that when a project grows to be more than 30-40 people >> that not everyone can be involved in everything all the time (and we >> have around 30-40 *thousand* people involved now). But there's no >> intention to create an inner circle or, by corrollary, exclude other >> people. What could we (you/me/LWG) do to make this more inclusive? > > For example remember positions like Richard Fairhursts in the thread (I know > that it's not an "official" OSMF/LWG position): "Of course, not everyone is a > member of OSMF, but if you don't choose to get involved in the running of the > project then you can't really complain if decisions are taken that aren't to > your liking." > > I have choosen "to get involved in the running of the project" by mapping a > lot of stuff, organising a local regular mapping group, helping in several > german OSM activities and whatnot. Now telling me to shut up about decisions > when I'm not a member of the OSMF is, well, disgusting IMHO. > > Remember: There are a lot of active OSM activists around the world that are > not OSMF members, a lot of them might not even speak english. > > Regards, ULFL > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
