On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Have you not noticed how your posts are becoming repetitious?
If by that you mean, Thanks Steve for your insights on moderation, I
think you have now clearly communicated your point of view, then,
good, I'll stop.
If it was
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
You realize tightly moderate and issues of all nature are somewhat
contradictory, do you?
Not at all. Personal attacks, repetition, off-topic remarks,
spamminess, me-tooism - none of this comes under issues of all
natures.
On 25/08/2010 07:45, Steve Bennett wrote:
Not at all. Personal attacks, repetition, off-topic remarks,
spamminess, me-tooism - none of this comes under issues of all
natures. Picture the town hall meeting style that has become
popular in politics. Questions on almost any topic are allowed, but
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:21, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't
they?
No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Chris Browet c...@semperpax.com wrote:
But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they?
No. Not all opinions are helpful. And certainly, sheer volume of
opinions is unhelpful.
If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be?
A well-moderated list can be a valuable forum for achieving consensus,
rather than just a soapbox for every opinion to be voiced.
But every opinions should have a place to voice themselves, shouldn't they?
If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be?
Wouldn't it better to create
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:52:04AM +0200, Chris Browet wrote:
If Talk becomes moderated/censured, where would that be?
Wouldn't it better to create specific, on-topic moderated lists (and
moderate the existing ones) rather than moderating Talk, whose topic is
not obvious?
Then people who
Most of the topic‐focused lists are sane. I think the point is, legal
discussion is swamping the talk list, and there are already lists
specifically for legal discussion and therefore better suited to the
topic.
Is this moderating stuff all about the license change?
If so, and I know
Simon
The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time.
There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was
happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of
helping the process to happen by stealth and attrition.
For the
Am 20.08.2010 12:36, schrieb Chris Browet:
Do you honestly think the Nearmap announcement should have been posted
to Legal, with only a fraction of OSM'ers aware? I don't think so.
Not the announcement but the discussion, I think.
Peter
___
talk
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:36:18PM +0200, Chris Browet wrote:
Is this moderating stuff all about the license change?
No, that’s just the current example.
If so, and I know others agree, it should certainly NOT be moderated on
Talk.
I disagree. (Although, seeing as there is call for an
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:01:02PM +0100, 80n wrote:
The license change is the biggest single issue facing OSM at this time.
There are frequently complaints that people have not been aware that it was
happening. Shunting it off to legal-talk@ could be construed as a way of
helping the process
This thread should be moved to legal. I saw the words ODbL and
Contributor Terms :-)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
We haven't had any problems before the controversy over licences, and I
expect
that once these troubles are resolved one way or another, there won't be
further
eruptions. So I'd suggest not setting up any elaborate
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
We haven't had any problems before the controversy over licences, and I expect
that once these troubles are resolved one way or another, there won't be
further
eruptions. So I'd suggest not setting up any elaborate moderation
We haven't had any problems before the controversy over licences, and I expect
that once these troubles are resolved one way or another, there won't be further
eruptions. So I'd suggest not setting up any elaborate moderation mechanism
until it is proved to be necessary.
--
Ed Avis
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:34 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote:
The list has become sane again, and I've not had to use any Evil Powers.
But, is this what you want going forward?
My own inclination is that list moderators are elected per list for, say, a
one year period. But I suspect
17 matches
Mail list logo
