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