John, are you claiming the entire conversation last week had nothing to do with the merits of the tool itself? That's a very sad statement.
"building up trust" implies actions. Creating a tool that mimics what other tools already do implies exactly that. Ignoring the actual tool, and instead concentrating on the person is exactly what I said before - its a witch hunt. On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:42 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > No you need to build up trust again and it takes time. Only then will > your ideas start to gain acceptance. > > Cheerio John > > On 18 November 2017 at 13:26, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> John, not trusting a brand name and being unreasonable about new project >> are two different things. One is a healthy caution. The other is a >> baseless witch hunt, at which point it doesn't matter what the person does, >> what matters are the pitch forks and torches. >> >> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 1:19 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of them might >>> have broken the rules. How does that relate to the new tool discussion? >>> The conversation was about the new tool that does things the same way as >>> several other tools. >>> >>> How does that break "unwritten rules"? >>> >>> It relates to trust and politics with a small p. Your brand name is >>> untrusted. >>> >>> Cheerio John >>> >>> On 18 November 2017 at 13:11, Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrak...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> James, this is not about hurt feelings. This is about misrepresentation. >>>> >>>> Last week I re-wrote Sophox tool based on the community feedback. The >>>> new tool uses the same approaches as existing tools. Yet, somehow I >>>> violated some unwritten rule by creating a new tool? This is bogus. >>>> >>>> There were many OSM edits I have done in the past. Some of them might >>>> have broken the rules. How does that relate to the new tool discussion? >>>> The conversation was about the new tool that does things the same way as >>>> several other tools. >>>> >>>> How does that break "unwritten rules"? >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 5:24 AM, James <james2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Seriously this is what 2017 has become? A bunch of snowflakes argueing >>>>> whoes feelings are hurt? Seriously grow up people, the world is not full >>>>> of >>>>> cupcakes and rainbows. >>>>> >>>>> "Yuri is perceived by many as unreasonable as before and tries to >>>>> ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM." >>>>> >>>>> I was somewhat following that email thread and there were many people >>>>> sayong that yuri was unreasonable and that he was ignoring the rules for >>>>> mechanical edits. Journalists are allowed to summarize the general tone of >>>>> a situation without being perceived as "taking sides". >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 17, 2017 10:49 PM, "Clifford Snow" <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17/11/2017 22:52, Clifford Snow wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frederik, >>>>>>> I think we are all thankful for the newsletter. And believe they are >>>>>>> free to publish to their own standards. However, because they use OSM >>>>>>> resources by publishing on our mailing lists they need respect our >>>>>>> values. >>>>>>> I don't think asking a publication to be respectful to individuals is >>>>>>> asking too much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Clifford, >>>>>>> Being "respectful" is a two-way street. This is a situation that's >>>>>>> been going on for almost exactly a year now. During that time this >>>>>>> individual has shown contempt for the OSM community, including on >>>>>>> occasion >>>>>>> telling outright untruths. Conversations with him were very repectful >>>>>>> at >>>>>>> first (conducted in changeset discussions rather than on mailing lists), >>>>>>> but it gradually became clear that any statements such as "I have >>>>>>> already >>>>>>> stopped changing any objects except" were simply worthless. At some >>>>>>> point >>>>>>> you have to call a lie a lie, and I can't think of a way of doing that >>>>>>> without "being disrespectful". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Absolutely. I'm only suggesting that as a community we strive to be >>>>>> respectful to everyone, all the time. That in no way mean that we condone >>>>>> bad behavior. I'm all for calling out such behavior even to the point of >>>>>> expelling/banning the person if reasonable attempts to get the person to >>>>>> change is futile. My basic belief is that all people have good >>>>>> intentions. >>>>>> Our community goal should be to bring out the best in everyone. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, I have to object to the use of "they" and "our" in your >>>>>>> comment. The OSM Weekly is produced by and for people from the OSM >>>>>>> community, exactly the same community that the mailing lists are run by >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> for. The use of that sort of divisive language ("they") reminds me of a >>>>>>> visit to South Africa back in the 90s, and not in a good way. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for the poor choice of words. Now you see why I don't offer to >>>>>> edit or write for the OSM Weekly. My grandfather, a former newspaper >>>>>> editor, would have been sadden by my lack of writing abilities. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Clifford >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> @osm_seattle >>>>>> osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us >>>>>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> talk mailing list >>>>>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> talk mailing list >>>>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> talk mailing list >>>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk