On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
That makes you at least partially slightly poisonous as I'm sure you're aware :-) Seriously though, there are limits here. There's not just people having disagreements, there's vast amounts of deliberate trolling, insane quantities of thread hijacking to make points that have been made 200 times before, and a good dollop of pissing off just about anybody who is silly enough to subscribe to osm-talk these days. Most of us have just left it to rot, which is also a shame because that's no good for new people. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
