Christoph I see that my message wasn't received as intended. My hope is not to amplify disagreements, but to help set a constructive and friendly tone. Let's take the discussion of how we're communicating "offline" -- I'll connect with you, and I hope set up a time to talk directly. In any case, I don't feel I'm deflecting. As I said, "I think there are some very reasonable ideas and discussion on this thread, about how to describe the tasking manager, OSM, HOT, etc", and appreciate your work to help frame the complexities of OSM appropriately. I also think we should have better guidance on the handling of trademark policy, the appropriate ways and places to raise issues, and how the OSM Foundation and LWG handle these issues. Will bring this up. Thanks-Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Monday, October 23, 2017, 10:23:14 AM MDT, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: On Monday 23 October 2017, Mikel Maron wrote: > [...] However ... I hope we can > also agree that it is counter productive to start off such > discussions in such an argumentative pose. I hear a lot of distrust > in phrases like "misrepresentation", "claiming ownership", "exactly > what HOT doesn't do". This has nothing to do with trust, i looked at the website and describe my observations here. The term "misrepresentation" is from the trademark policy: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trademark_Policy#5.3._Misrepresentation If you think it is inappropriate to use such a term w.r.t. OSM trademarks this is probably something you need to discuss with the LWG. > It's emotionally draining for me to read things > like this, and I don't think I'm alone. Have you considered that it might be "emotionally draining" for OSM contributors to see the name of the project being used on a website like this without any links to OSM and mentioning of the fact that OSM is all about collaborative global mapping even without HOT or the tasking manager? FWIW - i do not feel emotionally drained about this, but i feel rather offended by your, Ian's and Clifford's reactions deflecting a matter-of-factly critique of that website and the resulting discussion about this and possible ways to improve it (and i welcome the constructive suggestions so far) into a discussion about what words may be used in discussion here. I would also like to remind you that one of the most important guiding principle in communication in OSM is to "assume good faith". I followed this principle here by describing my observations of the tasking manager without any interpretation as for why it is designed this way - although this is of course a question i did contemplate. It would be nice to see you doing me the same courtesy by arguing the topic at hand without insinuating "an argumentative pose", "distrust", "Combative questions" or a lack of respect. -- 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