<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">28 May 2019, 10:32 by frederik@remote.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">Hi,<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:<br></div><blockquote>As I see it we can choose between<br></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">[...]<br></div><blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">- deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">approach for the community. Letting an unchecked third party forge ahead<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">with iD was good in the beginning but now we need some checks and<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">balances in place to ensure that what the OSMF brandishes as the<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">"default editor" is actually reflecting community consensus.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">It's totally ok if the developers don't want to be bothered with having<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">to find out what the community consensus is(*) - this is hard enough<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">even for the community itself.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">I agree, it is perfectly fine to not spend time on researching what community<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">wants and judging what is the consensus (it is stressful, takes massive amount<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">of time and in general there is always an unhappy group and it is quite hard to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">decide whatever one did it the right way and it n worse in cases when <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">one also proposed/spearheaded solution that (s)he is now promoting etc etc).<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">But in the same way it is also perfectly fine to deploy forked iD version<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">or some other editor as default on the OSM homepage.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">(*) Though the way they have let us know their disdain for what I feel<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">is the community really isn't very mature and I think that Andy is right<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">in pointing out that an apology is in order -<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6442 - unless of course the<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">the iD project's Code of Conduct has some magic "does not apply to<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">maintainers" feature.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div> </body>
</html>