[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing
bostoncello at gmail.com
Wed Oct 4 18:32:29 UTC 2017
I was also disappointed in the design of the survey. I would have expected
its design to be open to community review before its launch. The bias that
the authors did not see might have been pointed out and corrected.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
> Hi Frederik,
> Maybe I remember things differently or this is a case of semantics. I
> thought we had tasked the DWG to investigate which might result in a
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> I can explain why this question is leading - it's because DWG has been
>> tasked by the OSMF board to work on a corporate editing policy, and not
>> to find out if people want one. You could of course say we shouldn't
>> have added the "I don't think we need a policy at all" point then. The
>> OSMF board is convinced that some form of organised editing policy would
>> be beneficial.
>> The reason for this is that there have been a number of occurrences in
>> the recent past of "under-the-radar" corporate editing of OSM, some of
>> them detrimental. Occasionally these things arise from actively hostile
>> behaviour on the part of the people doing the edits, but the
>> overwhelming amount of corporate editing is well-intended. The board
>> does not wish to stop corporate editing, but to give clear guidelines to
>> ensure that corporate editing is done in a community-compatible way.
>> Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>> osmf-talk mailing list
>> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk