Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Christoph, unregenerate implies I should apologize for doing a wrong thing.
In the discussion, the only thing I **actually did** was I wrote a new tool
and posted about it.  Was I wrong to write a tool?  Was I wrong to discuss
it with the community?

I patiently sifted through all the negative comments and addressed the
issues. I address Fredrerick's issue about zoom, I addressed Andy's comment
about domain name  and lack of https, I listened to Simon's comment about
reject button.  I simplified DWG's ability to find and revert relevant
changesets.  And many other issues.

Should I apologize for not listening? But as you can clearly see from all
the changes, I listened very attentively, and tried to address every single
point. Should I apologize for writing software that uses the same concepts
and ideas as other similar tools? Should I apologize for holding a
different opinion than some of the community, while clearly supported by,
perhaps a less vocal minority?

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 November 2017, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> >
> > Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the
> > German Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be
> > certain, but it looks like the German original[1] is more carefully
> > worded and less presumptuous. So the controversial second half is
> > very possibly just a clumsy translation.
>
> For understanding - and i don't want to support any further attempts in
> telling the WeeklyOSM team how to do their work with that - the German
> version uses the term 'uneinsichtig' - which might also be translated
> as unregenerate.
>
> My attempt at a translation of the German text would be:
>
> "Yuri is perceived by many in this discussion, in a similar way as in
> previous discussions, as unreasonable/unregenerate and questions the
> relevancy of the unwritten rules of OSM."
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 22 November 2017, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the
> German Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be
> certain, but it looks like the German original[1] is more carefully
> worded and less presumptuous. So the controversial second half is
> very possibly just a clumsy translation.

For understanding - and i don't want to support any further attempts in 
telling the WeeklyOSM team how to do their work with that - the German 
version uses the term 'uneinsichtig' - which might also be translated 
as unregenerate.

My attempt at a translation of the German text would be:

"Yuri is perceived by many in this discussion, in a similar way as in 
previous discussions, as unreasonable/unregenerate and questions the 
relevancy of the unwritten rules of OSM."

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Richard, in both languages, the main issue is the same. It says that the
discussion has restarted with the negative commentary, but skips the main
point - that the tool has been substantially reworked based on community
feedback.  It's like saying some people got rich without mentioning the
bank rubbery.  And it alleges that the tool is a "hidden mechanical edit
tool", (GTranslate) which is simply untrue - unless they are claiming that
existing tools are also that.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Richard Fairhurst 
wrote:

> joost schooupe wrote:
> > It doesn't help that it was worded as "people are
> > saying", but then the last part of the sentence seems more
> > like their own opinion.
>
> Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the German
> Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be certain, but it
> looks
> like the German original[1] is more carefully worded and less presumptuous.
> So the controversial second half is very possibly just a clumsy
> translation.
>
> Reading back through this whole discussion, those of us fortunate enough to
> be born with the world's international language as our mother tongue could,
> perhaps, be more forgiving of those who weren't.
>
> Richard
>
> [1] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/11/wochennotiz-nr-382/
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Richard Fairhurst]

joost schooupe wrote:
> It doesn't help that it was worded as "people are
> saying", but then the last part of the sentence seems more 
> like their own opinion.

Worth noting that WeeklyOSM is produced alongside and seeded by the German
Wochennotiz. I don't sprechen sufficient Deutsch to be certain, but it looks
like the German original[1] is more carefully worded and less presumptuous.
So the controversial second half is very possibly just a clumsy translation.

Reading back through this whole discussion, those of us fortunate enough to
be born with the world's international language as our mother tongue could,
perhaps, be more forgiving of those who weren't.

Richard

[1] http://blog.openstreetmap.de/blog/2017/11/wochennotiz-nr-382/




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[joost schouppe]

Most of the important stuff has been said already, so I'm just replying
because I feel like I have to, since I'm running for the OSMF board [1] on
a platform partly about "let's try and keep things fun, shall we?" [2].

Some observations :

- while the Weekly did make a bit of a harsh statement, I've been surprised
before about how people "who call out" others seem to feel like they can be
as harsh as they want to.

- the OSM weekly is constantly calling for help. If you don't like what
they're saying, change what they're saying.
In some cases, the "do it yourself philosophy" can feel like a hollow
slogan - how are you going to make a pull request to the standard map style
if you're not a programmer? In this case, all that is needed is time and
motivation

- I do agree that this quote was a bit poorly worded. It's hard to get the
point across in so few words (which is also why we shouldn't try and have
discussions on Twitter). It doesn't help that it was worded as "people are
saying", but then the last part of the sentence seems more like their own
opinion. It would probably have been more useful to state that the proposal
was controversial, coming from someone with a history of controversy, and
just point to one of the messages that tried to explain why.
In fact, the enormous size of messages related to this whole topic, means
that it would benefit from one or more opinion pieces outlining the
conflict and its background. But investigative journalism is hardly
something we can expect from the Weekly. I would in fact very much like the
Weekly team to write more editorial stuff. That would allow them to clearly
voice an opinion, and separate it more from the "real news". That said, if
you write such an editorial piece, it will probably make the Weekly.

-Criticism is often hard to receive, especially about things you do as
volunteer. Even if people do misguided things, they did them because they
believed they were doing right. And with some guidance, the next thing they
do could be great.
Anyone in the OSM ecosystem should be able to take some criticism, it comes
with the diversity of opinion. But I feel like we have "survival of the
thickest skin". I really appreciate the people in this thread asking for
attention to being more sensitive about that. It shouldn't end in bland
self-censorship, but I do feel like many of us could learn a thing or two
about non-violent communication.

Joost

1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/AGM17/Election_to_Board
(all it takes is being a member and adding yourself to that wiki page!)
2: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/diary/42720
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

 blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px 
#715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white 
!important; } Let's not get hung up on this, I think we're missing the point. 
The way the item in WeeklyOSM was written was rude and unnecessarily 
antagonistic. The very same information about the direction of the discussion 
could have gotten across without resorting to commentary on an individual, or 
continuing the argument.
I have a good rule of thumb for online communications. Imagine the people being 
addressed are in the same room as you. Read what you're writing out loud, 
without any intonation. If you are not comfortable saying the same in real 
life, not a good idea to write it online.

Mikel

On Tuesday, November 21, 2017, 8:36 AM, Rory McCann  
wrote:

On 17/11/17 23:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  Imagine you're 
>> running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset 
>> the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need
>> to also quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of
>> impartiality.
> 
> This is actually quite important. In the US, after the election, I 
> read a lot of media critique where people said that many papers had 
> misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both 
> sides of an argument equal coverage, however nonsensical one side may
> have been. This mistake that was made by well-meaning, 
> liberal-thinking, fairness-aspiring journalists, it was claimed, 
> contributed to giving the country Trump.

I second this. Irish broadcast law requires that political discussions
are "balanced", which was horrible during the 2015 same-sex marriage
debate. It was used to require that any mention of LGBTQ people on TV
was also "balanced" be equal airtime for people to respectfully claim
that gay people are a threat to children¹.

Requiring "balanced" discussions is fundamentally incompatible with any
sort of code of conduct.

Panti's Noble Call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0 :
> Have any of you ever come home in the evening and turned on the
> television and there is a panel of people - nice people, respectable
> people, smart people, the kind of people who make good neighbourly
> neighbours and write for newspapers. And they are having a reasoned
> debate about you. About what kind of a person you are, about whether you
> are capable of being a good parent, about whether you want to destroy
> marriage, about whether you are safe around children, about whether God
> herself thinks you are an abomination, about whether in fact you are
> "intrinsically disordered". And even the nice TV presenter lady who you
> feel like you know thinks it's perfectly ok that they are all having
> this reasonable debate about who you are and what rights you "deserve".
> 
> And that feels oppressive.

Calls for "balance" are often only made in one direction. Does anyone
believe that any mention of a company is required to give equal space to
someone to (respectfully, reasonably) claim that privately owned
companies are a threat to society, to the planet, are evil, and must be
fought, and must not be trusted? Surely people people should be
impartial on the capitalism/communism debate!

-- 
Rory

[1]
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bai-rejects-charge-of-stifling-debate-on-gay-marriage-301581.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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Rory McCann]

On 17/11/17 23:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:

On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  Imagine you're 
running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset 
the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need

to also quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of
impartiality.


This is actually quite important. In the US, after the election, I 
read a lot of media critique where people said that many papers had 
misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both 
sides of an argument equal coverage, however nonsensical one side may
have been. This mistake that was made by well-meaning, 
liberal-thinking, fairness-aspiring journalists, it was claimed, 
contributed to giving the country Trump.


I second this. Irish broadcast law requires that political discussions
are "balanced", which was horrible during the 2015 same-sex marriage
debate. It was used to require that any mention of LGBTQ people on TV
was also "balanced" be equal airtime for people to respectfully claim
that gay people are a threat to children¹.

Requiring "balanced" discussions is fundamentally incompatible with any
sort of code of conduct.

Panti's Noble Call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0 :

Have any of you ever come home in the evening and turned on the
television and there is a panel of people - nice people, respectable
people, smart people, the kind of people who make good neighbourly
neighbours and write for newspapers. And they are having a reasoned
debate about you. About what kind of a person you are, about whether you
are capable of being a good parent, about whether you want to destroy
marriage, about whether you are safe around children, about whether God
herself thinks you are an abomination, about whether in fact you are
"intrinsically disordered". And even the nice TV presenter lady who you
feel like you know thinks it's perfectly ok that they are all having
this reasonable debate about who you are and what rights you "deserve".

And that feels oppressive.


Calls for "balance" are often only made in one direction. Does anyone
believe that any mention of a company is required to give equal space to
someone to (respectfully, reasonably) claim that privately owned
companies are a threat to society, to the planet, are evil, and must be
fought, and must not be trusted? Surely people people should be
impartial on the capitalism/communism debate!

--
Rory

[1]
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/bai-rejects-charge-of-stifling-debate-on-gay-marriage-301581.html



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Ilya Zverev]

john whelan wrote:

No you need to build up trust again and it takes time.  Only then will your
ideas start to gain acceptance.


Oh come on. I've been a mapper since 2010, I've hosted dozens of events, 
I've written many articles and tools, some of which you might have used, 
I'm on the Board currently, and still my proposals and pull requests 
fail again and again, because there is no trust in OpenStreetMap. There 
is nothing you can to to build up trust. Your ideas will never get 
acceptance, it's just nitpicking and "unwritten rules" all over.


Ilya

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

John, are you claiming the entire conversation last week had nothing to do
with the merits of the tool itself? That's a very sad statement.

"building up trust" implies actions. Creating a tool that mimics what other
tools already do implies exactly that. Ignoring the actual tool, and
instead concentrating on the person is exactly what I said before - its a
witch hunt.

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, 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 
> 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 
>> 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 
>>> 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  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" 
> wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
>> 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 

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Jóhannes Birgir Jensson]

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 > 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
> 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
> 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
> 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"
> wrote:

Andy,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend
> 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 

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[john whelan]

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 
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 
> 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 
>> 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  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" 
 wrote:

> Andy,
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
> 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
>
> 

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

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  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 
> 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  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" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Andy,

 On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
 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 

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[john whelan]

>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 
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  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" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend 
>>> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

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  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"  wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend  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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[James]

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"  wrote:

> Andy,
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend  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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Clifford Snow]

Andy,

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend  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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Whataboutism at its best?

John Oliver: https://youtu.be/1ZAPwfrtAFY?t=6m2s


On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Andy Townsend  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".
>
> 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.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Andy Townsend]

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".


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.


Best Regards,

Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Richard Fairhurst]

Sheesh, you lot are hilarious sometimes. 

Publications have an inviolable duty to be impartial? That’s great. Very
interesting attitude in 2017. Tell me when you’ve found one such. 

WeeklyOSM writes what WeeklyOSM wants. If you don’t like it, contribute or
start your own. It saddens me that the spirit of do-ocracy in OSM has been
diluted so much that people now prefer to criticise others on the mailing
lists rather than doing anything better.

I’m a former newsstand magazine editor, lay out a tidy flatplan, write a
mean standfirst; and still, as a freelance, write features regularly. But
don’t let that stop you with your ever entertaining amateur hour. 

Richard 



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Clifford Snow]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>
>
> I'm immensely thankful that we have the weekly, and that it has formed
> independently of the powers that be in the OSMF, and that it dares to
> report things the OSMF wouldn't necessarily blog about, and that they
> aren't required to submit to some OSMF redaction. I find something to
> dislike in every issue, but that's not the point; the fact that we have
> a free press at all more than makes up for that.
>

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.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Steve Doerr]

On 17/11/2017 22:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:

many papers had
misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both
sides of an argument equal coverage


Oh really?!! Well at least we now know where you stand, in case you ever 
put yourself forward as a candidate for the OSMF board.


--
Steve

---
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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/17/2017 07:34 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  Imagine you're
> running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset the
> problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also
> quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of impartiality.

This is actually quite important. In the US, after the election, I read
a lot of media critique where people said that many papers had
misunderstood their journalistic impartiality as having to give both
sides of an argument equal coverage, however nonsensical one side may
have been. This mistake that was made by well-meaning, liberal-thinking,
fairness-aspiring journalists, it was claimed, contributed to giving the
country Trump.

Let's not fall into the same trap.

Also, let's not try and tell the weekly how to do their job. I prefer a
critical and occasionally opinionated weekly that enjoys the freedom of
the press over a sanctioned and moderated "state media" that is always
polite and only reports successes and advances, and glosses over any
acrimony that might exist in the community.

I'm immensely thankful that we have the weekly, and that it has formed
independently of the powers that be in the OSMF, and that it dares to
report things the OSMF wouldn't necessarily blog about, and that they
aren't required to submit to some OSMF redaction. I find something to
dislike in every issue, but that's not the point; the fact that we have
a free press at all more than makes up for that.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

One request. Can we not relitigate thie topic of Yuri's tool on this thread. 
Want to focus on helping WeeklyOSM to improve its coverage of our whole 
community.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 4:29:39 PM EST, Steve Doerr 
 wrote:  
 
 On 17/11/2017 20:50, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new 
> name is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and 
> requested changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many 
> community members suggested is biased.
>
> Mechanical edit claim was also never justified -- saying it's a 
> mechanical edit tool doesn't fit with the community's own definition, 
> per wiki. Just the other day the importance of using the right word 
> was mentioned - when I allegedly missed the word "deprecated". Let's 
> keep things consistent, and not dilute or change the meaning of 
> existing terms to fit the immediate agenda.
>

+1


---
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
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Steve Doerr]

On 17/11/2017 20:50, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new 
name is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and 
requested changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many 
community members suggested is biased.


Mechanical edit claim was also never justified -- saying it's a 
mechanical edit tool doesn't fit with the community's own definition, 
per wiki. Just the other day the importance of using the right word 
was mentioned - when I allegedly missed the word "deprecated". Let's 
keep things consistent, and not dilute or change the meaning of 
existing terms to fit the immediate agenda.




+1


---
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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yuri Astrakhan]

One important aspect was missing in the announcement. The tool's new name
is a tiny part of a much bigger set of community suggested and requested
changes. Fully ignoring functionality changes that many community members
suggested is biased.

Mechanical edit claim was also never justified -- saying it's a mechanical
edit tool doesn't fit with the community's own definition, per wiki. Just
the other day the importance of using the right word was mentioned - when I
allegedly missed the word "deprecated". Let's keep things consistent, and
not dilute or change the meaning of existing terms to fit the immediate
agenda.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

> I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just 
>wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the 
>arguments for and against.
It's just not ok to call out an individual like that. It's not appropriate, not 
correct and not helpful.  The dynamic of the discussion be expressed much 
better, with full information, without disrespecting each other. I'm happy to 
find ways to help WeeklyOSM if you all agree that the issue of impartiality is 
an important and serious one to take on.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 1:35:58 PM EST, Andy Townsend 
 wrote:  
 
  On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote:
  
   Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. 
Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to 
ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many 
better ways to summarize the topic.   
 
 Well to be fair, the article as written didn't actually say that - it said "is 
perceived by many as unreasonable".
 
 Full disclosure - I'm an occasional contributor to the weekly OSM newsletter.  
I didn't add or edit that article (actually I didn't contribute to any last 
week - you can usually tell the ones I've written because they have more links 
and perhaps too many words in them), but although perhaps a little over-concise 
I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just 
wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the 
arguments for and against.  Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  
Imagine you're running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset 
the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also 
quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of impartiality.
 
 Secondly - and this is a point that applies to many other areas of OSM too - 
there seem far more people willing to contribute their copy-editing skills here 
on a mailing list than actually helping put _next_ week's newsletter together.  
It's not a new phenomenon - a short while ago WeeklyOSM had a complaint from an 
OSM-centric organisation (let's call it "X") that "we never report on what's 
happening with X".  It was politely suggested to the complainer that perhaps 
they ought to volunteer themselves; then they could submit all the articles 
they like.  It went very quiet after that.
 
 It's a similar situation with technical discussions elsewhere ("you ought to 
render X like Y", "you ought to change how the osm.org website works so I don't 
have to build infrastructure for $project", "Nominatim ought to support my 
$odd_non_address_search_example").
 
 Although there's always room for improvement, much of what's around OSM now 
has a surprisingly low bar for entry, whether it's creating a map based on OSM 
data that shows $favourite_but_quite_rare_tag, or answering questions on the 
help site or forum, or as here, volunteering to submit and review a few news 
articles a week.
 
 Best Regards,
 Andy
 
 ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Andy Townsend]

On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote:
Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to 
do. Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and 
tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and 
there are many better ways to summarize the topic.


Well to be fair, the article as written didn't actually say that - it 
said "is perceived by many as unreasonable".


Full disclosure - I'm an occasional contributor to the weekly OSM 
newsletter.  I didn't add or edit that article (actually I didn't 
contribute to any last week - you can usually tell the ones I've written 
because they have more links and perhaps too many words in them), but 
although perhaps a little over-concise I don't think you could argue 
with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just wade through the recent 
archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the arguments for and 
against.  Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".  Imagine you're 
running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset the 
problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also 
quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of impartiality.


Secondly - and this is a point that applies to many other areas of OSM 
too - there seem far more people willing to contribute their 
copy-editing skills here on a mailing list than actually helping put 
_next_ week's newsletter together.  It's not a new phenomenon - a short 
while ago WeeklyOSM had a complaint from an OSM-centric organisation 
(let's call it "X") that "we never report on what's happening with X".  
It was politely suggested to the complainer that perhaps they ought to 
volunteer themselves; then they could submit all the articles they 
like.  It went very quiet after that.


It's a similar situation with technical discussions elsewhere ("you 
ought to render X like Y", "you ought to change how the osm.org website 
works so I don't have to build infrastructure for $project", "Nominatim 
ought to support my $odd_non_address_search_example").


Although there's always room for improvement, much of what's around OSM 
now has a surprisingly low bar for entry, whether it's creating a map 
based on OSM data that shows $favourite_but_quite_rare_tag, or answering 
questions on the help site or forum, or as here, volunteering to submit 
and review a few news articles a week.


Best Regards,
Andy

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 17 November 2017, Mikel Maron wrote:
> statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and
> tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate,

First: This is not what weeklyOSM has written.
Second: I disagree this is inappropriate - inprecise maybe, but not 
inappropriate.

> and 
> there are many better ways to summarize the topic.

Here we agree - although you probably would consider most better ways to 
summarize the discussion to be even less appropriate.

It is quite simply a fact that the way Yuri has interacted with the OSM 
community during the last months has led to a lot of people developing 
a fairly bad opinion of him, his attitude and what he does.  If you try 
to prevent people from articulating these opinions and prevent others - 
those in the weeklyOSM team - from reporting on and communicating about 
this in the way they perceive it, including the intensity and extent of 
the displeasure felt by those in the discussion, you are going to do 
more damage to the OSM community than either Yuri or anyone maybe going 
on occasion a bit overboard with their choice of words in the 
discussion.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yves]

Le 17 novembre 2017 17:27:05 GMT+01:00, Mikel Maron  a 
écrit :

>> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list
>about the tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite
>contentious.
>* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 
>
>On Friday, November 17, 2017, 11:23:23 AM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:  
> 
> 2017-11-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron :
>
>Now try this version...
>> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list
>about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The
>discussion continues to be quite contentious.
>
Ok, now it's completely hollow. 
But this is interesting, and I *do* find the original from Weekly a bit harsh. 
Please, Mikel, do you want to try now to add some content on the actual thread? 
Yves 

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do. Point 
is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all 
the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many better ways to 
summarize the topic.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 12:35:44 PM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:  
 
 2017-11-17 17:27 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron :


Good point. Try this..
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious.


but then the message boils down to: "Yuri Astrakhan is discussing a re-named 
tool (Sophox) on the talk mailing list", and you have to go there and read 
through everything in order to actually get "information".
Cheers,Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-17 17:27 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron :

>
> Good point. Try this..
>
> > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about
> the tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite
> contentious.
>


but then the message boils down to: "Yuri Astrakhan is discussing a
re-named tool (Sophox) on the talk mailing list", and you have to go there
and read through everything in order to actually get "information".

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

> believe the version you propose is still biased, because Yuri says his tool 
>isn't about performing mechanical edits.
Good point. Try this..
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool now called Sophox. The discussion continues to be quite contentious.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 11:23:23 AM EST, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:  
 
 2017-11-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron :

Now try this version...
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion 
>continues to be quite contentious.

This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does not 
call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the 
discussion with an open mind.


Thank you Mikel for the insights, but I believe the version you propose is 
still biased, because Yuri says his tool isn't about performing mechanical 
edits. ;-)
Cheers,Martin
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Friday 17 November 2017, Mikel Maron wrote:
> >
> > > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list
> > > about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox).
> > > The discussion continues to be quite contentious.
> >
> > This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but
> > does not call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader
> > to enter the discussion with an open mind. -Mikel
>
> Yikes!
>
> You are aware that Yuri considers this tool not a mechanical edit tool
> so maybe lets also censor that part of the message...
>
> I sincerely hope the weeklyOSM team ignores such advise.  No one really
> wants a shallow, politically whitewashed verbal ornamentation of the
> links carefully vetted not to hurt anyone that could be generated by a
> bot (yes, there is some irony in that).


I don't know about a "shallow, politically whitewashed verbal ornamentation
of the links", but I *do* want to see WeeklyOSM (and the rest of the
community) try harder to not hurt individuals or make disparaging remarks
about any particular member or project in this community.

There are so many things happening in the OSM community: the WeeklyOSM team
could do a better job at editorial control so that they could talk about
all those things without letting politics or opinions show up in their
posts.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Yves]

Good exercise Mikel, but using only 'contentious' you don't mention the issues 
raised in the discussion. 
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 17 November 2017, Mikel Maron wrote:
>
> > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list
> > about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox).
> > The discussion continues to be quite contentious.
>
> This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but
> does not call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader
> to enter the discussion with an open mind. -Mikel

Yikes!

You are aware that Yuri considers this tool not a mechanical edit tool 
so maybe lets also censor that part of the message...

I sincerely hope the weeklyOSM team ignores such advise.  No one really 
wants a shallow, politically whitewashed verbal ornamentation of the 
links carefully vetted not to hurt anyone that could be generated by a 
bot (yes, there is some irony in that).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-11-17 16:53 GMT+01:00 Mikel Maron :

> Now try this version...
>
> > Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about
> the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion
> continues to be quite contentious.
>
> This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does
> not call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the
> discussion with an open mind.
>


Thank you Mikel for the insights, but I believe the version you propose is
still biased, because Yuri says his tool isn't about performing mechanical
edits. ;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Mikel Maron]

> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at 
>impartiality
Impartiality is an ongoing issue for any journalistic enterprise. WeeklyOSM has 
at times done better, and done worse. I think WeeklyOSM is a really valuable 
service, and I hope the editors there are open to our help to become a better 
service for the whole OSM community.
Let's look at this example, and see if we can come up with something better. 
Compare the original version...
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
> tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). Yuri is perceived by 
> many as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in 
> OSM.

and this version
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). Yuri is as unreasonable 
>as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM.
This is worse, but I posit not much worse. While the published version does 
semantically avoid WeeklyOSM making this judgement, the meaning comes through 
much the same.
Now try this version...
> Yuri Astrakhan re-started the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the 
>tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called Sophox). The discussion 
>continues to be quite contentious.

This is better. It gets the same substantial information across, but does not 
call out judgement on an individual, and allows the reader to enter the 
discussion with an open mind.
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron 

On Friday, November 17, 2017, 6:52:25 AM EST, Rafael Avila Coya 
 wrote:  
 
 Hi:

I've read the majority of the posts of the "New OSM Quick-Fix service" 
thread in OSM-talk, and I don't see any partiality in the post of the 
WeeklyOSM. In fact, I think they have been very polite and diplomatic.

Cheers,

Rafael.

On 17/11/17 11:34, Steve Doerr wrote:
> On 17/11/2017 08:20, weeklyteam wrote:
>> Yuri Astrakhanre-started 
>> the
>>  discussion on the Talk mailing list about the tool to do mechanical edits 
>> (it is now called/Sophox/). Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as 
>> before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM.
> 
> 
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one 
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress 
> depends on the unreasonable man."
> -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
> 
> 
> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at 
> impartiality.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
>  
>     Virus-free. www.avast.com 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Rafael Avila Coya]

Hi:

I've read the majority of the posts of the "New OSM Quick-Fix service" 
thread in OSM-talk, and I don't see any partiality in the post of the 
WeeklyOSM. In fact, I think they have been very polite and diplomatic.


Cheers,

Rafael.

On 17/11/17 11:34, Steve Doerr wrote:

On 17/11/2017 08:20, weeklyteam wrote:
Yuri Astrakhanre-started 
the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called/Sophox/). Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM.



"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one 
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress 
depends on the unreasonable man."

-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)


Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at 
impartiality.



--

Steve


 
	Virus-free. www.avast.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 17 November 2017, Steve Doerr wrote:
>
> Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at
> impartiality.

Huh?

"perceived by many as unreasonable as before" is a clear statement of 
distancing themselves from this opinion.

Impartiality does not mean you have to present every marginal opinion on 
a matter equally.  Supplementing a news item on a discussion with a 
summary of the results of the discussion is just good journalism.

My criticism would be that "unreasonable" - while it applies - is not 
the main impression people have got from Yuri here.  I could list a 
number of words i would find fitting but stating them here would 
probably be considered offensive by some.  I could imagine the 
weeklyOSM editors were looking for a word that avoids this and ended up 
with "unreasonable".

And George Bernard Shaw's idea does not work with any of these other, 
more fitting terms - sorry. ;-)

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #382 2017-11-07-2017-11-13

[Steve Doerr]

On 17/11/2017 08:20, weeklyteam wrote:
Yuri Astrakhanre-started 
the discussion on the Talk mailing list about the tool to do mechanical edits (it is now called/Sophox/). Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before and tries to ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM.



"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one 
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress 
depends on the unreasonable man."

-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)


Anyway, it's sad to see that WeeklyOSM has abandoned all attempt at 
impartiality.



--

Steve



---
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