<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Frederik Ramm wrote:
<pre wrap="">Sorry for resurrecting this thread but i only noticed it yesterday.
Following a more stable change process would indeed be great.
It's not only about users but also about developers who wants to write
applications that somehow use osm data. As i said, the project is
already in a state where it is widely known and the data is used/modified
by many users and developers on a regular base.
I still maintain that aiming for more "professionality" or "stability"
(as has been called for in this thread) at this early stage will
*harm* the project rather than be good for it.
Aiming for more stability with the current state of things would mean
more stability of features, but also more stability of bugs, problems,
errors, and shortcomings, the fixing of whose will become a much more
Look at how fossilized big projects like Debian have become, where
every slightest move requires ages just because they want to be
stable, professional, respect the established user base and so on.
Stability like that would be the end of OSM as we know it.
I concede that it will be inevitable at some point in time. But I also
firmly believe that by that time we'll have lost some of our brightest
minds because they're not interested in the IT equivalent of filling
out 17 forms with three copies each before something can get done.
"OSM stable" will be a different project with different people. We're
not there yet, and please let us not hasten getting there. We're
neither stable nor professional and this is *good for us*.
There may be users who would prefer a stable and professional OSM but
they will either have to put up with a fast-moving project or wait
until activitiy dies down to a level they can work with.
I agree with Frederik. Anyway, the last time "stability" was an issue
was 6 months ago with the release of API v0.5, and even then it wasn't
the end of the world, considering the type of changes back then. The
OSM evolves more or less "naturally" as we discover better was of doing
things. This is a strength and not the weakness, and the people who
contribute to the project do it because of their inherent enthusiasm
and changes in OSM should not really be the reason for them to stop
doing so. The end goal is to provide an open source for geo data,
everything else is of minor importance, IMHO.<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://igorbrejc.net">http://igorbrejc.net</a></pre>