We can agree to disagree that taking access away to a resource like Twitter is okay. It doesn't feel ok in an open project, and the solution of emailing a committee to send a tweet feels cumbersome. The actual solution of grouptweet feels like it works for everyone, including giving the accountability you wanted. Still sad you left over it.
Steve > On Dec 6, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: > > [Apologies to talk@ readers for this follow-up to a post on osmf-talk@. I'm > not an OSMF member and therefore can't post to osmf-talk@, but as I'm being > spoken about over there, I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond.] > > Steve Coast wrote: >> See, there was no group that "mobbed" Richard out the board. The CWG >> took away Twitter access from everyone without any consultation, >> thinking Ivan's tweet was mine. I asked for it back, used every >> channel as I outlined. Richard sadly quit feeling CWG was being >> overpowered by the board but that's not what happened. The CWG took >> Twitter away from the people using it without talking to anyone, then >> was surprised this wasn't okay. > > For the record: > > Communications Working Group didn't think Ivan's tweet was yours. We > genuinely didn't know who had sent it. (From what I remember of the content > of the tweet, it didn't appear to be from a native English speaker, and at > first I thought it might have been Emilie.) > > At the time, CWG was aiming for a step change in our communications. In > particular, we were aiming to follow up our very successful switch2osm > campaign, and were in the early stages of planning a second campaign aimed at > recruiting new mappers. > > A large part of that was professionalising our message - bringing sharper > focus to OSM's outbound communications, to consistently push the message that > mapping was accessible, enjoyable, and made a difference. Basic marketing and > not the sort of thing that should come as a surprise to anyone. > > To get this focused message across, we needed to ensure that everything going > out on our Twitter, Facebook and Google+ accounts was in line. In an ideal > world we would like to have drawn up simple house style and messaging > guidelines (again, marketing 101) for those with access. > > However, our hand was forced by this badly phrased tweet, from persons > unknown, endorsing a map which failed to attribute OSM (years later, I can't > even remember what map it was!). Changing the Twitter password and asking > those who wanted a message to go out to contact us, which is what we did, > seemed the easiest and most sensible short-term measure. > > Unfortunately you decided to take this as a personal affront, when no such > affront was intended, and to campaign volubly for CWG's work to be overruled > because of this. > > There is absolutely no personal animus in this. Sure, I disagree with you on > many things, but you're an engaging guy to chat to over a pint and I have no > doubt we'll do so again some time. But let me make it clear that I did not > quit because "CWG was being overpowered by the board". I quit because it was > clear that there was no likelihood of improving OSM through the Foundation, > in any fashion, when well-intentioned, industrious, and skilled volunteer > work could be overturned by emotive say-so. > > I see no sign that this has changed, and that is why I have no intention of > rejoining the Foundation. > > As a postscript, I believe switch2osm was the last substantial marketing > effort that OSMF has done. All the good publicity for OSM since then has been > from third parties, particularly Mapbox. Progress in OSM happens despite the > Foundation, not because of it. > > Richard > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
