<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 05/01/17 12:23, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mikel@groundtruth.in">mikel@groundtruth.in</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:1796353284.380623.1483619028871@mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff;
font-family:HelveticaNeue-Light, Helvetica Neue Light, Helvetica
Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande,
sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483458699909_475513"><span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483458699909_475512"> </div>
<div class="signature"
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483458699909_475514">* Mikel Maron
* +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron</div>
<font face="HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
Lucida Grande, sans-serif">... </font><font
id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1483458699909_475653"
face="HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida
Grande, sans-serif"> As Frederik said, better reporting and
processing can benefit DWG. This is something I want to spend
time on.</font><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that it's important that how we do this sort of thing as a
project is discussed in whatever public forums are available (and
right now the "most international" one we have is this talk list,
alongside the other widely-used international community forums for
different languages over at forum.osm.org such as the DE and RU
forums there).<br>
<br>
Your "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports..."
post above may have been something of a dog-whistle response to
Frederik's post, but when I read things that talk about "the current
revert regime" and say "Reverts should be held to the same standard
as imports" and "well documented and visible plan" I read it as
meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are currently doing in
the way that you are doing it", and want to understand why.<br>
<br>
I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather
than the board (and yes, there will obviously be as many different
views as there are OSM mappers). If "the communication I've seen
from community members making reverts has left a lot of rough
feelings" then let's talk about it (for a start; which particular
actions are we talking about? Was the data that was removed added
when it shouldn't have been (for e.g. license reasons) and are we
just talking about the tone of the conversation, or something else?<br>
<br>
Activities such as <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44923663">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44923663</a>
(to take an example revert action from me yesterday) are going to
become more common as more people use OSM. In this case the
sequence of events was detect the problem, revert the vandalism,
block the user and request that an admin delete the account (which
was created just for that purpose). I'd argue that those actions
(apart from block the user) should be able to be carried out by
anyone familiar enough with OSM to recognise the problem, and we
should actually encourage everyone in that position to do so -
providing that they can recognise the difference between obvious
vandalism (as happened here) and a business owner unable to get the
hang of editing and renaming something nearby by mistake. I don't
think that "a well documented and visible plan" would help here,
unless that plan said "if you see something wrong, please take
appropriate action to fix it" (which I've always thought was the 0th
rule of OSM anyway). Anything too bureaucratic would just slow down
the fixing of problems.<br>
<br>
There are lots of interested parties in OSM - all the way from
individuals like me who 8 years ago were just looking for somewhere
to store stuff from an old GPS (a route of footpaths and villages
across Wales, as it happens) up through large non-profit and
for-profit corporations, all of whom contribute greatly to the OSM
ecosystem. On a personal note with the DWG I've found that the
large organisations can generally look after themselves, and there's
a role for standing up for the "little guy", whether it's a new
mapper in an established community or (as in the SADR case upthread)
an attempt to remove a country - for some definition of country -
from the map. It's important that as a community we talk to each
other and listen to what everyone else has to say, especially when
(as in the "wikidata" case) everyone has the best interests of the
project at heart, just different visions of what those best
interests are.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>