[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing

Robert Banick rbanick at gmail.com
Tue Oct 3 06:08:44 UTC 2017

Hi all,

I want to echo that I found many of the questions leading, as helpfully
explained by Andrew. I won’t repeat his analysis but was disappointed that
a really constructive exercise to gauge the community’s feelings falls
somewhat short.

I’m not actually opposed to a policy. It’s an idea grounded in the reality
of some bad practices we need to sort out. But as Helge points out, there
is no accompanying welcome mat and I find that disturbing. And as Darafei
points out past policies have in effect greatly discouraged many types of
editing by privileging the most reactionary elements of our community with
the most time on their hands to be vocal.

Anyways, I think the data won’t be irrevocably tainted by the
questionnaire. I look forward to the discussion to come and hope we draft a
good policy if it comes to that, one that strike an appropriate balance
between welcoming further contributors and protecting the OSM database.


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 6:11 AM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 02.10.2017 19:48, Stefan Keller wrote:
> > Frederik asked to express what I meant by bias. But since the survey
> > is closed (for me) it's difficult to cite the questions. So let me try
> > to exemplify like this: An unbiased survey about the pros and cons of
> > something (organized mapping in this case) would be like this +1, 0,
> > -1, therefore having an affirmative, a neutral and a declining
> > statement. A biased survey would ask questions like this 0, -1, -2.
> As Christoph already said, this is difficult to follow. We're talking
> about a policy regulating organised editing. The minimum we can have is
> "no policy", meaning that people doing organised editing are bound by
> the exact same rules as everyone else. In hypothetical survey question
> this wold mean:
> 0 - same as everyone else
> 1 - a little more regulation
> 2 - much more regulation
> The option "-1" - "people doing organised editing should be bound to
> *less* rules than normal mappers" - is not on the table, and if we *had*
> added such a reply option it would surely have been perceived as a joke!
> Bye
> Frederik
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20171003/bd5a4f6e/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list