No you need to build up trust again and it takes time. Only then will your
ideas start to gain acceptance.
Cheerio John
On 18 November 2017 at 13:26, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> John, not trusting a brand name and being unreasonable about new project
> are two different things. One is a healthy caution. The other is a
> baseless witch hunt, at which point it doesn't matter what the person does,
> what matters are the pitch forks and torches.
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:19 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> >There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of them might
>> have broken the rules. How does that relate to the new tool discussion?
>> The conversation was about the new tool that does things the same way as
>> several other tools.
>>
>> How does that break "unwritten rules"?
>>
>> It relates to trust and politics with a small p. Your brand name is
>> untrusted.
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 18 November 2017 at 13:11, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> James, this is not about hurt feelings. This is about misrepresentation.
>>>
>>> Last week I re-wrote Sophox tool based on the community feedback. The
>>> new tool uses the same approaches as existing tools. Yet, somehow I
>>> violated some unwritten rule by creating a new tool? This is bogus.
>>>
>>> There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of them might
>>> have broken the rules. How does that relate to the new tool discussion?
>>> The conversation was about the new tool that does things the same way as
>>> several other tools.
>>>
>>> How does that break "unwritten rules"?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:24 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seriously this is what 2017 has become? A bunch of snowflakes argueing
>>>> whoes feelings are hurt? Seriously grow up people, the world is not full of
>>>> cupcakes and rainbows.
>>>>
>>>> "Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before and tries to
>>>> ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM."
>>>>
>>>> I was somewhat following that email thread and there were many people
>>>> sayong that yuri was unreasonable and that he was ignoring the rules for
>>>> mechanical edits. Journalists are allowed to summarize the general tone of
>>>> a situation without being perceived as "taking sides".
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 2017 10:49 PM, "Clifford Snow" <cliff...@snowandsnow.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/11/2017 22:52, Clifford Snow wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frederik,
>>>>>> I think we are all thankful for the newsletter. And believe they are
>>>>>> free to publish to their own standards. However, because they use OSM
>>>>>> resources by publishing on our mailing lists they need respect our
>>>>>> values.
>>>>>> I don't think asking a publication to be respectful to individuals is
>>>>>> asking too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clifford,
>>>>>> Being "respectful" is a two-way street. This is a situation that's
>>>>>> been going on for almost exactly a year now. During that time this
>>>>>> individual has shown contempt for the OSM community, including on
>>>>>> occasion
>>>>>> telling outright untruths. Conversations with him were very repectful at
>>>>>> first (conducted in changeset discussions rather than on mailing lists),
>>>>>> but it gradually became clear that any statements such as "I have already
>>>>>> stopped changing any objects except" were simply worthless. At some
>>>>>> point
>>>>>> you have to call a lie a lie, and I can't think of a way of doing that
>>>>>> without "being disrespectful".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely. I'm only suggesting that as a community we strive to be
>>>>> respectful to everyone, all the time. That in no way mean that we condone
>>>>> bad behavior. I'm all for calling out such behavior even to the point of
>>>>> expelling/banning the person if reasonable attempts to get the person to
>>>>> change is futile. My basic belief is that all people have good intentions.
>>>>> Our community goal should be to bring out the best in everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, I have to object to the use of "they" and "our" in your
>>>>>> comment. The OSM Weekly is produced by and for people from the OSM
>>>>>> community, exactly the same community that the mailing lists are run by
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> for. The use of that sort of divisive language ("they") reminds me of a
>>>>>> visit to South Africa back in the 90s, and not in a good way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the poor choice of words. Now you see why I don't offer to
>>>>> edit or write for the OSM Weekly. My grandfather, a former newspaper
>>>>> editor, would have been sadden by my lack of writing abilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Clifford
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> @osm_seattle
>>>>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
>>>>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> talk mailing list
>>>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> talk mailing list
>>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
