Hrm. I think we should have some kind of idea of what we're trying to accomplish. There are a bunch of companies interested in OSM, and it might be nice for them to talk. I suspect it's about as simple as that? But we don't want to do that and exclude anyone else, so it should be free for anyone else to come along.
I'd avoid discussion about where we both get value... because OSM isn't really a company you can negotiate terms with. The license on the data is what it is, take it or leave it. So there's not really any discussion about OSM giving anyone more value in that sense. On Nov 24, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Steve Citron-Pousty wrote: > 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 > Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
