Hey Peter and Emilie:
Totally agree - hence the reason to have an unconference. The important part of
this conference would be the back and forth as we try to find the place where
we both can get value. I think everyone who wrote the original letter is very
sensitive to the claims of any company "driving OSM" - this is NOT what we
want.
Does that make sense?
Steve
________________________________
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org on behalf of Emilie Laffray
Sent: Wed 11/24/2010 10:33 AM
To: Peter Wendorff
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestion for an Unconference
On 24 November 2010 18:20, Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de> wrote:
Dangerous question.
On the one hand you are right: It would be awesome.
But on the other OSM should not be as a big companies wants it to be.
I agree with the statement that OSM should be what OSM wants to be. If the goal
of OSM coincides with those companies, good, else we should not move out of our
way to serve those companies interest.
Emily Laffray
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
