Matt Why don’t we focus on the substance raised, rather than framing everything as Steve sitting around sending volumes of flak your way which let’s face it isn’t very accurate.
The board doesn’t do nearly as much as it used to, some members of it are disengaged to say the least, and there are a number of reflections on that, some already raised. Is this a good or bad thing? What metrics are good metrics to judge the board? If we look at those same metrics for OSMF US, where do they sit? If the board doesn’t push to run great conferences and secedes that, doesn’t meet face to face and has email discussions about telephony options or whether meetings are even possible… what *does* it do? Why should we keep it around? Steve On Apr 5, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Kathleen Danielson > <kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 5, 2014 9:15 AM, "Matt Amos" <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Steve Coast <st...@asklater.com> wrote: >>>> SOTM EU and US, combined with the OSMF focus on being more of a >>>> theoretical body have reduced the profit and motivation in doing a SOTM to >>>> approximately zero. I hope it still happens, but I'd be surprised. >>> >>> it wasn't so long ago [1] that people were writing they'd heard >>> comments that OSM "had been devised by Steve as a way to make a heap >>> of money from other peoples' effort", and there was recurring >>> criticism that he was behaving in some sort of sinister way. so it's >>> saddening, and not a little hypocritical, for steve to come out with >>> the same sorts of "evil board" conspiracy theories now. >> >> Matt, >> >> Steve was merely expressing his doubt that the conference would come >> together. He cast no aspersions on the Board that I could see and just >> described the landscape of conferences as he sees it. > > okay. i read it very differently, where "OSMF focus on being more of a > theoretical body" is very much an aspersion, although an oblique one. > > in follow-up emails, i definitely take "the OSMF has decided to not do > anything this year" and "... while the OSMF board decides which open > source telephony solution is ideal" as aspersions, as in [1], where > Steve seems to be trivialising the OSMF board, or falsely representing > the views of its members. > >> Suggesting that this >> is somehow a "conspiracy theory" is a stretch, and seems like you're just >> looking for an excuse to dump on Steve. > > i'm sorry it seems that way. perhaps a bit more background would have > been in order, but i was trying to keep the length of the email under > 'essay' length. > > i remember very well when Steve himself was the target of such > aspersions, as i was trying to point out, and as in [2]. therefore it > is saddening to me that the difficult experiences he had, both before > the OSMF board and on it, don't appear to prevent him from creating > difficult experiences for the current board. > >> Feel free to respectfully disagree with Steve, me, or anyone on these >> threads, but calling someone "hypocritical" is unkind and unproductive. > > i apologise profoundly for any offence that i caused Steve. i was > trying to find a word to adequately express the dichotomy between > rightly criticising those who are seem to be negative towards the > board while in office and seeming to be negative towards the board > when not. in any case, it is the action, not the person, that i was > trying to call out. > > as to being productive - i think is important to say that getting > involved in OSMF is the most productive way to effect change. casting > oblique aspersions is not only negative, but likely to attract more > negative responses. perhaps i should have heeded Steve's advice to > prospective board members: > > "... the main thing you should be prepared for isn't so much the time > commitment but the fact that it's a thankless task. You will have to > make choices between two equally bad options and take the flak for > it." [3] > > i just didn't think, when i was discussing my candidacy with him > before the 2011 AGM, that so much of the "flak" would be coming from > him. > > cheers, > > matt > > [1] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2012-October/001858.html > [2] NOTE: i include this because it emphatically demonstrates the > level of frustration which can be experienced when one is confronted > by people being negative, or downplaying one's efforts: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-July/015267.html > [3] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2011-August/001214.html > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
