On 11/19/2015 2:54 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
This seems a bit of an odd time to announce a schism and I'm sure you
didn't intend for your statement to come across as it just did.
While rabid anti-OSMers are gaining more power and influence in HOT and
MM, I do assume that the majority of the HOT and MM communities are not
falling in to the trap of believing their own marketing copy and realize
that they are a small minority in the larger OSM community and are
dependent on the good will and support of the wider OSM community to
make a difference.
Simon,
As I asked you yesterday in HOT's irc channel that you frequent, where,
please any one example, where does HOT say it is anything other than a
part of the world wide OSM community?
Also, I would love to see any evidence of "rabid anit-OSMers" in HOT.
Please, again, you make these claims, I would love to see ANY evidence
of it.
For the record, HOT typically promotes OSM, not HOT, but OSM at every
opportunity because OSM is the amazing technology, ideology and
community that make HOT's work possible. For that promotion I can
provide evidence, because I have personally promoted _OSM_ to many
international bodies and NGO's.
In addition, you will notice that we spend a great deal of time, money
and effort building local _OSM_ communities around the world, _not_ HOT
communities.
It is a ridiculous statement on its face; obviously HOT does not succeed
if OSM does not succeed.
As to the original issue Ramm raised:
Most HOT folks who commented agreed the example changeset comments,
while useful, could benefit from improvement (as could the vast majority
changeset comments in OSM). Mikel has already opened an issue in github
to improve them and the issue has already been brought to the people who
manage HOT OSM Tasking Manager projects, how is that not working with
and being responsive to the larger OSM community?
I think HOT's history demonstrates an eagerness (and outright need) to
work with the OSM community at every opportunity (not mistake free of
course). But I can also personally point to at least 1 example where
HOT has reached out to OSMF and the License WG and literally been
ignored after repeated attempts to even discuss an issue.
I don't mind constructive criticism and dialog and really want a lot
more of it, but what I do object to are baseless attacks and accusations
(e.g., "rabid anti-OSMers"). If you have some examples of this or
HOT/Missing Maps (MM) marketing hype that in any way is disparaging of
OSM or says it is somehow better than or invented OSM, please come out
with them or stop making these statements.
I will assume that Ramm's original goal of his email was to improve
changeset comments and that is what is coming of it, seems like we
should all be happy and could move on and maybe follow up on it after
HOT has had a chance to address it.
Cheers,
Blake
VP HOT
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
