tom at compton.nu
Tue Aug 4 10:42:02 UTC 2009
On 04/08/09 11:16, Nick Black wrote:
> Agree that that is not a good situation. I'd think that the Technical
> Working Group would be the right place to make a decision, or to take it
> to the Board if its something that needs more attention.
I think Matt has come up with a good way round the problem anyway. I've
got a patch from him that adds some extra privacy levels that allow
people to choose to reveal more information about a track but leaves
everything as it is now by default.
The UI is not very good, but we think we know how to improve it so once
I've had a chance to play with that it will probably go in.
> In this case, the problem was probably because of data protection stuff.
> The OSM-F is not currently data protection registered, so we are
> severely limited as to what we can do with any personal data. For
> example, more Board members don't know the names of the people who are
> Foundation members. We are going to register with the UK data protection
> people - this adds extra burden (we have to put notices on the site) but
> it also allows us to do more, like expose GPX data and make contact with
> members. All permission based, of course.
Well all I got back when we asked was that the foundation didn't feel it
was something that they wanted to get involved in... Maybe that was a
communication failure but that was what got reported to me.
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
More information about the osmf-talk