On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
...Any moderation will be announced to those people I just mentioned, and
not publicly. Why not publicly? On balance, it seems better to not call out
individuals publicly which might only make things worse and make
, such as this mailing list.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
From :mailto:li...@gimnechiske.org
Date :Mon Aug 16 01:50:39 America/Chicago 2010
If you can back your claim of conspiracy by some sort of evidence than we can
conclude that it is not a theory anymore, independent
. However, I do agree that discussion of conspiracy
theories has the potential to swamp a discussion forum, such as this mailing
list.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
From :mailto:li...@gimnechiske.org
Date :Mon Aug 16 01:50:39 America/Chicago 2010
If you
2010/8/11 SteveC st...@asklater.com:
Specifically, I point to the basics of mailing list etiquette:
...
• No conspiracy theories
...
could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy?
Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy.
cheers,
Martin
M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
• No conspiracy theories
...
could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy?
Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy.
no conspiracy theories seems clear.
A real conspiracy is not a theory.
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] BDFL Moderation
M?rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
• No conspiracy theories
...
could this be amended by unless there is a real conspiracy?
Otherwise our hands might be tied in case there is a conspiracy.
no conspiracy theories
On 11/08/10 21:56, Liz wrote:
There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf-
talk or legal-talk or talk.
I also find that is a problem with the mailing list, and when I contact
the working groups. No definitive answer is provided, usually the
discussion gets
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have
seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because
they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with mapping
their village.
Pierre-Alain Dorange wrote:
How data in my village disappeared ?
We've used totally legal sources compatible with OSM.
I'm one of the most quantity data creator (in my town) and i realesed
all my adds/modification as PD...
If any of the other people who mapped your village don't agree to
Steve,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
I plan only to moderate people (for 24 hours) after taking a poll of key
people including Andy Allan, Matt Amos, Katie Filbert, Tom Hughes, Emilie
Laffray, Frederik Ramm, Ivan Sanchez, Grant Slater and Richard Weait. If
At 2010-08-11 11:26, SteveC wrote:
...Any moderation will be announced to those people I just mentioned, and
not publicly. Why not publicly? On balance, it seems better to not call
out individuals publicly which might only make things worse and make them
feel more upset, which is not the
Am 11.08.2010 20:56, schrieb Serge Wroclawski:
Several people yesterday mentioned and requested a Code of Conduct.
I have a draft of what several of us at OSM US were working on at:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcschwqz_36cgv47g88
This is a draft that was never voted on and needs revision,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
• If you've made your point already, you don't need to tell us all
again
Not sure how that's supposed to work. If someone on the list asks a
question that's already been asked by someone else and answered, or
expresses a
I think I figured out what's been specifically bugging me about this.
When I joined OSM about eight months ago, I knew vaguely that there was a
license change process going on, and assumed the OSMF knew what they were
doing. (I still think they know, but I now have concerns about what they're
Am 11.08.2010 21:45, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
So the older folks are getting annoyed with the threads. I admit that I'm
starting to get annoyed too. But we have to remember that people are just
joining now and don't have the same knowledge that we have.
I believe the LWG is doing a great
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
So the newbies have chosen to join this mailing list, so they at least have
seen the list of mailinglists. Why didn't they join legal? or dev= because
they're not interested in those topics, they have enough to do with
Steve,
SteveC wrote:
I plan only to moderate people (for 24 hours) after taking a poll of
key people including Andy Allan, Matt Amos, Katie Filbert, Tom
Hughes, Emilie Laffray, Frederik Ramm, Ivan Sanchez, Grant Slater and
Richard Weait. If you think more than these would be good then let me
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Simon Ward wrote:
I see two problems in the threads so far:
* The dissenters keep repeating themselves, with the same arguments
already discussed to death
This doesn’t help with:
* The dissenters have some real issues that people keep ignoring or
Hey
As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page
suffice? I'm happy to abandon it and get back to coding if it's not
needed in the new system of dictatorship (which I support).
I've updated it to merge in various changes suggested by people, and
especially lots of stuff
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote:
Hey
As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page
suffice? I'm happy to abandon it and get back to coding if it's not
needed in the new system of dictatorship (which I support).
I've updated
I agree with all Andy said.
Steve
stevecoast.com
On Aug 11, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:29 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk
wrote:
Hey
As BFDL, do you still want a Code of Conduct, or does your wiki page
suffice? I'm
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:05:25AM +0100, Andy Allan wrote:
self control common sense advice from peers guidelines
policies 'official' warnings interventions backstop
What we've come to recently is the final five steps have been pretty
much non-existent, and things have broken down
Am 11.08.2010 20:26, schrieb SteveC:
Despite the discussion resulting from my post yesterday, there continue to be
individuals on the talk@ mailing list disrupting the community.
Well, who is really disrupting the community?!?
People like John Smith with a usually high volume output, or the
On 12/08/2010 00:20, Ulf Lamping wrote:
Am 11.08.2010 20:26, schrieb SteveC:
Despite the discussion resulting from my post yesterday, there
continue to be individuals on the talk@ mailing list disrupting the
community.
Well, who is really disrupting the community?!?
People like John Smith
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 12:48 -0600, SteveC wrote:
I agree on the transparency, but like you I'm not sure how to do it
thought the way you outline is reasonable. Anyone know how other
projects do it? How did subversion do it?
most lists where this has been necessary announce the fact on the list
25 matches
Mail list logo
