Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
- Let's not tar all Australians with the same brush. Some of us are
supportive of the license changes, and pulling our heads in and just
mapping quietly.
I love the implication here that you're 'poisonous' if you don't support the
license changes (and vice versa).
That wasn't my intention. To be clearer:
* Some of us are supportive of the license changes,
* some of us pull our heads in and just map quietly.
Now, I will go back to doing just that.
Steve
(apologies to talk-au for the mispost)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II
Please, if there's anything that you don't like, just ignore it, take your
GPS go for walk/ride/journey.
It really is that simple.
Dave F.
+1
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Great post, and excellent honeytrap: all the poisonous people flocked
immediately to this thread and started debating it furiously.
Some points:
- verbosity/spamminess *is* disruptive. It takes a lot of time to
read, and invariably someone will respond, causing more posts. Worse,
it causes
Am 10.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Liz:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
'Poison' is opinion.
I regard these efforts as attempted censorship
take this back to legal-talk where it belongs
don't reply to poisonous posts
censorship would it be if posts were deleted (or not filtered on the ML
On 11/08/2010 12:24, Peter Körner wrote:
Am 10.08.2010 23:04, schrieb Liz:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
'Poison' is opinion.
I regard these efforts as attempted censorship
take this back to legal-talk where it belongs
don't reply to poisonous posts
censorship would it be if posts were
What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process
should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're
involved in?
agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this. osm has open
in the name and there is no need to block people.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:22:22AM -0700, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
What are your ideas? How should we block people? For how long? What process
should it be? What are the best practices from other projects you're
involved in?
agree 99% with all of this posting and the only part is this.
Am 11.08.2010 00:17, schrieb TimSC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
But where did it lead to? Random deletions in wp/de? That's not where
OSM should go...
Peter
___
talk mailing list
On Wednesday 11 August 2010 20:22:22 Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
the real question is how to move forward as fast as possible and get the
whole license discussion out of our mind. As several asked already let's
open the vote for old accounts to dual license and get a strong vote for a
license.
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
I think we can easily accept loosing a handful of poisonous people
because all others will spend less time dealing with them and be more
productive.
sure some will continue but then it's definitely time to think about
blocking them.
This is
On 12 August 2010 00:26, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
But Steve C. is going on about banning people purely for posting more
messages than others, *even* if they're are on topic. This is unacceptable.
No, it's not. If someone is being really difficult, then they distract
everybody.
Post count was one metric in the video SteveC linked yesterday. I
don't think using that as the sole measure of a contributor would be
reasonable.
That wasn’t the sole metric in the video, and neither did I think Steve
suggested that it should be _the_ metric either. I can see that people
On 11/08/2010 22:20, Liz wrote:
I wrote about censorship, and this is the aim at this point, as I see it.
+1
(touché Liz :-) )
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
You guys obviously didn't read Steve C's post at 10/08/2010 19:13.
Please read the full thread before posting.
Err, would that be the one where he merely said “interesting statistics”
and didn’t state any conclusion?
Simon
--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved
On 10 August 2010 17:19, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a
benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all
power I have in OSM. I used to write the code, own the domain names, run the
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:36 PM, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote:
[ ... ]
I fully support what you have said. From the ubuntu community, their
code of conduct works well http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct as
it provides guidelines that can be adhered to, or conversely used to
I suggested a Code of Conduct, and have been working with OSM US for
us to adopt one. We've written a draft and were waiting for the annual
meeting and the next board to take it up
I'd like to see the OSMF adopt something similar.
A moderation policy without a code of conduct is too potentially
Hey
So while I am by no means! an expert in the workings of the ubuntu
community, I can summarise as follows from
http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/governance:
The Community Council is responsible for the creation of sub-groups
and teams (such as the local chapters and development
El día Tuesday 10 August 2010 18:19:30, SteveC dijo:
So we are at a point now in OSM, I believe, where a few poisonous people
are wrecking the time, focus and goodwill of the majority of contributors,
I, for one, agree. These flame wars only waste our time. Our as in all of
us. It leads
SteveC-2 wrote:
One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique
that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from
actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority make a lot of
noise and people look and say 'oh wow there is no
Hi all,
I know this first hand. Many (if not most or all) of the key people
in OSM are feeling drained, distracted and upset. Some are talking of
hiatus or resign. These are the key people who write code, build
things, maintain things and run our working groups.
I'm not sure if I (still)
On 10/08/2010 17:59, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.
I agree.
Personally I think Steve C is one of the rudest, most vitriolic voices
on the forums. Most of
Hi,
While others are afraid to contribute to the discussion because of the heat.
I think the Australians have a good point about the contributor terms and
loss of data, but I'm not going to get involved and risk being labeled a
poisonous person for agreeing with them.
There is a big
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
SteveC-2 wrote:
One quote from the talk in particular comes to mind: it's a technique
that poisonous people can use to derail a consensus-based community from
actually achieving consensus. You have this noisy minority
On 11 August 2010 03:26, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the
contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and
spreading FUD that
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Personally I think [name redacted] is one of the rudest, most vitriolic
voices on
the forums. Most of his posts are based on the idea of I don't like you
because you don't agree with me. This thread being a prime example.
Hi,
There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the
contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and
spreading FUD that has been dissected and disproved several times by
different
On 11 August 2010 03:42, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
heard.
Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate...
But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it
actually
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Patrick Kilian o...@petschge.de wrote:
Hi,
There is a big difference between pointing out the current form of the
contributor terms means that we will loose 80% of the data in Australia.
Do you really want to proceed? and jumping into every thread and
Hi,
No matter if the claim is 10% or 100% it should be made and it should be
heard.
Without more details about contributor intent we are left to speculate...
True. But I think we both agree that it is a valid point that should be
discussed and handled (hopefully in a manner to minimize data
2010/8/10 Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com:
...and back on topic:
One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel
the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss
what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the
whole
On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:10 PM, Peter Körner wrote:
Am 10.08.2010 18:59, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.
It's the dose that makes the poison, and when
+1 for post by SteveC
It would be great if people would put more thought into what they say, use
more restraint. When the list becomes mostly noise, people will stop using
it.
For the months of July and August, I have run some stats to see just how
much people are posting:
For August, so far:
On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:
Interesting statistics:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk
What does that prove?
verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.
Dave F.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On 10/08/2010 18:15, Dave F. wrote:
On 10/08/2010 17:59, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Personally I think this idea of labeling people as poisonous is itself
poisonous, and anyone who agrees with it is at least slightly poisonous.
I agree.
Personally I think Steve C is one of the rudest, most
On 11 August 2010 03:58, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes flames indicate true disagreement between two parties. It is
enough to have two passionate people from opposite sides to have it
going forever. I think we need not only regulate or moderate, we need
a way to address
OSM is mostly a consensus-based community, or a do-ocracy. It was never a
benevolent dictatorship, and I have given up (as far as I know, anyway) all
power I.
Your hitting the nail on the head. I totally agree here. The replies are
also a bit true pointing to when someone is defined as
On 10 August 2010 19:25, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:
Interesting statistics:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk
What does that prove?
verbosity *doesn't* equate to disruption.
+1
I don't find
On 10/08/10 20:40, F. Heinen wrote:
You can have very valid points and be very right but if the guidelines
tell that the project is defined red and you think blue is better
then when you making this point time after time then you can be
defined as poisonous (even though you can even be
TimSC
I agree he is only talking about how the discussion should be conducted but
OSM needs both. If the project definition is unclear then the discussions
will also be unclear. The license change is IMHO one of these issues. It is
not about wrong or right but about
being clear what the intended
On 10/08/2010 20:57, Kevin Peat wrote:
On 10 August 2010 19:25, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 10/08/2010 19:13, SteveC wrote:
Interesting statistics:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Aude/osmtalk
What does that
Hey
I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page -
would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people
who have already commented or started this thread, would you sign and
abide to this code?
If you do suggest changes, just go ahead and make them on the page
Forgot the link. http://openetherpad.org/h2MuQYeCRP
On 10 August 2010 21:29, steve brown st...@evolvedlight.co.uk wrote:
Hey
I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page -
would people suggest any changes? And more importantly, to all people
who have already commented or
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:29:26PM +0100, steve brown wrote:
I've drafted a potential OpenStreetMap Community Conduct page -
would people suggest any changes?
I would include the wiki in last section, and move the licence text to
the bottom.
And more importantly, to all people who have
thanks steve
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic guidelines per
mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate list but a questions
list... should we add that in too? I think that will be super helpful.
On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:29 PM, steve brown wrote:
Forgot
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate
list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I think that
will be super helpful.
I think this
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Patrick Kilian wrote:
But there has been the claim CC-BY-SA works perfectly well. If it
actually works has to be tested in court. But there are enough lawyers
that have told us it might very well break that the perfectly part
of the statement is definitely false. If it
On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Simon Ward wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:50:26PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
guidelines per mailing list too, eg newbies@ should not be a debate
list but a questions list... should we add that in too? I
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ian Dees wrote:
One of the tenets mentioned in the video SteveC linked to was to not fuel
the fire by responding to poisonous posts on mailing lists. As we discuss
what to do about this sort of distraction, we should keep in mind that the
whole community bears the
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, SteveC wrote:
Maybe a line saying mailing list posts should follow the topic of the
list
Fine
Talk= talk
and when you get plenty you are upset?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
guidelines per mailing list too […]
I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each list can have
its own additional guidelines in the list info page, or
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Simon Ward si...@bleah.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:04:00PM -0600, SteveC wrote:
Someone mentioned that in addition there should be some topic
guidelines per mailing list too […]
I think this should be a general code of conduct, and each
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 04:20:02PM -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
“Mailing list posts should follow the topic and guidelines set by the
list”?
Could it specify where to find the guidelines?
It could, but shouldn’t become another list of mailing lists, we already
have two.
Simply saying guidelines
Steve,
I might support a code of conduct with a limited scope, but we seem to
be moving towards a broad project wide definition of values. I am
rapidly cooling to the idea of more central planning being imposed on
OSM. I have previously commented that OSM has not needed to impose much
55 matches
Mail list logo
