<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>@Frederik & @Christoph, all for clarification,</p>
<p>The intend of my previous mail, as in approach and proposal, was
to find some acknowledgement that it is desirable and makes sense
to invest a lot of effort and time, both by the initiator(s) and
those who wish and able to participate.<br>
In a short time I tried to sketch an initial base content from
where to start and which aspects we want to address, describe a
feasible scope. The request to express support, at this time, is
to find out if the approach through a proposal process, with a
specific voting procedure (anonymous and inclusive) is viable,
engaging and inclusive. In my personal opinion it can be and at
this time the most suitable.<br>
We all know it's short comings, they have been expressed and
objected to in multiple channels. Challenges, the procedures and
proposals which create change, by nature mostly engage a majority
of conservatism and denial. That is why I requested to express
your support only, to find out if my preference can be a suitable
vehicle to start a process and has enough engagement at this time
to make sense and chance to be completed, whatever the outcome may
be.<br>
<br>
So your comments and opinions are respected, known and repeated
multiple times, taken into account, shared by many. The
proceedings and procedures we use in OSM have significant
shortcomings, proven over time in multiple incidents. We can only
improve, reduce the escalation and support our communities
freedoms and inclusiveness through a process of change, as our
community changes over time, in all aspects. Especially the
experience and views of Frederik & Christoph, is of major
importance both as it has had a large impact and shaped OSM to
what it has become now, as in a resource for lessons learned.</p>
<p>I prefer in my communication to express myself avoiding to
complicated terms, use concrete examples, in an attempt to include
as much as possible other language groups, community members who
had less educational opportunities. So please, don't focus on UN
or IHO as being the final solution, but rather as a base frame, a
starting point to address the following issues, in the context of
names and boundaries:</p>
<p>A. where are the limits of "on the ground truth" and
"verifiability" in OSM, we have a delineated base definition for
both, but there is a need, opportunities to make the room for
interpretation more narrow;<br>
B. how far, what is the scope of "local", "local interests", when
does the broader, world interest and opinion prevail;<br>
C. if the above fail to reach a consensus, what is the fall back
scenario. Do we define a reference framework, like the UN or
others ? Is a voting procedure, compliant with privacy
regulations, protection of peoples physical well-being as well as
freedoms of political, cultural, religious and sexual opinion and
expressions through anonymity, inclusive and fair in terms of
representation for minorities and indigenous communities ? As a
community what fall back scenario do we have, how is it
implemented.</p>
<p>So, with your understanding of the above, please express your
positive intend to cooperate, engage and willingness to contribute
with:<br>
1. the proposal process with wiki discussion pages (in multiple
languages as far as feasible), both as most suitable in terms of
procedure as historical registration;<br>
2. an adopted voting process, not the voting process which we
currently have. Accepted, adopted or abandoned;<br>
3. the talk-tagging mailing list (as the most popular and
engaging) wiki discussion pages (in multiple languages as far as
feasible);<br>
4. the initial base frame as described, with UN and possible other
candidates as reference frames for fall back scenarios. A base
frame which will be accepted, adopted or abandoned.<br>
</p>
<p>Greetings, regards and respect to all of you,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>