Just stop this.
This has been a fine example of how to decrease membership of a list
that should be productive and friendly but has been anything but so far.
On 18.11.2017 18:42, john whelan wrote:
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:
Andy,
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend
<ajt1...@gmail.com <mailto: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
<http://osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us>
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
