Tim An ad hominem attack would be something where you complained about what the LWG spent it's time on and I replied with a comment about your mother. Instead, I replied pointing out that you are in fact the one using most of their time recently. That would be called a rebuttal or perhaps a riposte, but it's not an ad hominem attack.
Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 20, 2011, at 9:47, TimSC <mappingli...@sheerman-chase.org.uk> wrote: > On 20/06/11 16:33, Steve Coast wrote: >> I think the LWG is more than well aware that they are imperfect human beings >> volunteering in a horrible environment to make things better. > So, can you point to where LWG itself has explicitly asked for help? Or > recognised it's difficulties with communication in writing? Perhaps we need a > request for help page on the wiki? It would be good to have them ask for > specific types of help because people with those skills can step forward. > >> >> I'd take a long look at how you have sucked up the LWGs time, Tim, before >> you make these kinds of statements. > Steve, can you stop changing the subject on to me? It's ad hominem and a > violation of etiquette. And it is off topic and doesn't assume good faith. Do > you understand what I am asking, as you keep doing it even when I ask you to > stop? > > Everything I have done, I have done in good faith. I shouldn't have to defend > myself on every thread. (And Steve, if you want to talk about this seriously, > try constructively responding to my email to the LWG on 15th June first. > Continued discussion on this probably should be off the mailing list.) > > On 20/06/11 16:39, Chris Hill wrote: >> Maybe part of the reason that these volunteers are working too hard is >> because some people demand individual attention. Imagine if everyone made >> their own demands of the LWG ... >> > Are you seriously saying that a handful of people directly talking to the LWG > is a significant factor in LWG having communication difficulties? Or is this > just another ad hominem? Is there a constructive solution to this? or are you > telling me to shut up? > > It seems to me the same issues come up again and again, but never concluded, > so it is not necessarily the fault of the person asking the question (or even > of the LWG). I suggest that people directly trying to communicate with the > LWG is a symptom and not a cause of the communication problem. > > Of course the LWG has a tough job, because legal issues are very hard to > resolve and I have never denied that. But the solution is not to blame me or > LWG but to actually try to solve the problems. So stop pointing fingers, > please. > > Perhaps if we can reduce the barriers to people helping OSM it would help. We > obviously do this in mapping with friendlier tools. But I am told we talk > people that can do sys admin tasks and get involved with the LWG (and > probably many other things I don't know about). This might be due to the > selection of pretty obscure prerequisites to get involved: ruby on rails in > development (I have never met a RoR developer in person, at least knowingly), > and being familiar with the background of ODbL (which most normal legal > professionals can't understand, unless they are specialists). I suggest as > many tasks as possible be moved into domains were people actually have the > skills to help out. (This might be a lame idea but at least I am trying to be > constructive.) > > Regards, > > TimSC > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
