On 01/09/2013 12:20 PM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Communication professionals IMHO most often sound like marketing.
I did not mean communication professionals but giving more resources to
the OSMF's Communication Working Group or similar initiatives. Posting a
tweet or a blog post now and then really is not enough to communicate
about the project that OSM has become. There needs to be more
initiatives like switch2osm, campaigns need to be thought out and put
together. This does not have anything to do with marketing, it's just
how a project grows.
I didn't see any hint to something like that, and that's what's
missing for some people arguing against you here, I guess.
I did that multiple times already. It's kind of frustrating to see that
this discussion always seem to run in the same circles over and over
again... To see the gist of what I mean:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065555.html
Projects like OSM do not run on fairy dust and rainbows. Yesterday I
watched Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) on The Colbert Report talk
show and he was talking about Wikipedia's strategy and budget. They
spend nearly 30 million dollars a year on hardware, network, manpower
(technical, administrative) just to keep Wikipedia running. Of course it
is not nearly the same scale as OSM but the same principle starts to
apply to OSM as I hope everyone wants OSM to be more like Wikipedia in
terms of users and being well-known. The number of core contributors
stays pretty much the same for two years now.
I heard plans to have a "big bang" campaign this year based on the new
editor for newcomers (iD) and potentially the new history tab that I'm
working on. I would *love* to be able to finish my tool so it is
production quality and can be used to show off how great OSM is in such
campaign. But I doubt I will reach such point simply because I can no
longer afford working exclusively on OWL. So this will probably move to
another month, then another year etc...
Sure it may seem as I am lobbying to get money for myself but ultimately
if OSM cannot support in some way (organizational or not,
ecosystem-driven or not) in creating such feature that I prototyped then
something is really wrong with the project or at least the project is
being limited.
Please give concrete examples what you then mean by "better
organization". What's missing where and when? And if you really want,
why do you think, a "better organization" would solve that issue -
and what kind of "better organization"?
If only I had all the answers... I am just trying to start a discussion
based on my own example with OWL. It does not seem to be working too
well so let's drop it. It's clear that we speak different languages in
this topic.
Paweł
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
