SteveC-2 wrote: > > One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: "it's a technique > that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from > actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of > noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no agreement on this' and > if you look carefull the 'no agreement' comes from one person while seven > or eight people actually agree" > While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat. I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a "poisonous person" for agreeing with them.
It's pretty clear that anyone who won't agree to the new license/contributor terms is "poisonous" in at least one sense: their refusal is poisoning the data and making it necessary to cut out anything they've touched. Or perhaps they simply have weak immune systems, and the license change process is the poison that kills their contributions. Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Enough-is-enough-disinfecting-OSM-from-poisonous-people-tp5393767p5393917.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk