Indeed. I suppose if one joins a project on the assumption that there is no direction and no goals, at least you'll never be disappointed in how it turns out.
On Feb 4, 2013, at 10:26 PM, Jeff Meyer <j...@gwhat.org> wrote: > Noted. > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Robin Paulson <ro...@bumblepuppy.org> wrote: > On 2013-02-04 07:35, Jeff Meyer wrote: > To answer your first question, I do. Others have voiced the same > > you're making a decision not to have a decision any more (leading implies > someone making decisions on your behalf)? that's rather contradictory > > opinion - theyd like to see some organization, to know that their > > efforts are being applied for the most benefit. Your voice is noted, > but there should be room for disagreement, no? > > not if it affects me, or anyone else who doesn't want to be affected, no. > there is the faint whiff of top-down organisation happening here, which is > very concerning. i didn't take part in osm in order for someone to organise > me. > > One of the goals of a strategic exercise would be to test your thesis > whether OSMs (and the OSMFs) "damn good job so far," is "damn good" > > enough to continue to survive and thrive. The thesis that an > organizing board reduces a community of thousands to the views of a > handful seems contrary to what has gone on with many other successful > OS projects. > > considering the problems with representative democracy in the last 300 years, > and how the "representatives" are rarely representative of the many, i'm not > sure this is possible: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/23/congress-us-politics > > i recall that 80+% of british MPs are millionaires, while ~0.1% of their > constituents are. out of touch? > > if someone is not being represented, then by definition we won't hear from > them, so we won't know if there are any problems, such as poor > representation. so whether the other successful OS projects are representing > everyone or not is difficult to judge > > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Robin Paulson <ro...@bumblepuppy.org > [4]> wrote: > > On 2013-02-03 07:41, Jeff Meyer wrote: > > was: geocoding trademark thread > > I think Paweł has hit on a key question: does the OSMF have > plans to > operate and lead OSM in a more efficient, organized manner or > not? > > what makes you think anyone wants to be lead, i certainly dont? or > wants to be organised from above? were all fully functional human > > beings, perfectly capable of organising ourselves, and doing a damn > good job so far - look at where OSM and most other digital commons > projects have got through self-organising. > > i disagree with any idea of a board, i think its utterly wrong, it > > reduces a community of thousands to the views a handful of people > can put across. > > > -- > robin > > http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > -- > Jeff Meyer > Global World History Atlas > www.gwhat.org > j...@gwhat.org > 206-676-2347 > osm: Historical OSM / my OSM user page > t: @GWHAThistory > f: GWHAThistory > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
