On Feb 2, 2018, at 6:08 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > John: "tenets, sub-culture, planning, project management, scope, status,
> > video clips, explaining process and various audiences" are not buzzwords.
> > They are well-established, hundreds of years old (well, not video clips)
> > and most importantly, they work. Yes, "wiki" is more modern and specific
> > to a project like OSM, I stand by that, as BC2020 is an OSM project, we
> > really can't get away from that simple truth.
> But on a project that has one person writing the wiki and apparently few
> others who feel any commitment to it how do they add value?
John, there are many of us writing into (improving, really) that wiki: you,
me, others. WE have all added value. It's a good start. Others can (and must
and will) continue to add value to that wiki.
The wiki is (now, not forever) insufficient for pilot projects of the sort that
Jonathan says he'll chat with Sterling to ask him for his flight plan. Sure,
that being stitched together might have happened wholly independent of this
thread in talk-ca. It's part talk- it's part wiki, it's part back-channel
off-list email, it's a lot. There is a vibration running up and down that
chain right now which is declaring "trying to be more OSM."
OSM is the beating heart of this project. To me (I'm not alone), this
continues to feel like stovepiped bureaucracy and OSM is partly "riding the
ride," though, yes, a certain amount of that goes on in national initiatives
becoming OSM projects. Yet, we ARE an OSM project! Hm, I'm right at the
sticky hinge between initiative and project...maybe that is what chafes.
Otherwise, this isn't an OSM project and I might have to declare something is
going on here. Please, continue to talk amongst yourselves. I'm trying to be
quieter than I have been.
Open up. It feels good.
Talk-ca mailing list