[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] "The Future of Free and Open-Source Maps" Slashdot.org , Saturday February 17, 2018

Tue Feb 20 19:29:39 UTC 2018

The OSMF simply has very little to say in the game, it really boils down
to organizing the annual participation in GSOC.

You can argue that it indirectly controls contributions to the
website/API code by virtue of what actually gets deployed on
openstreetmap.org, but the code it has rights in is limited to parts of
the redaction code written by Andy Allan on contract. 

Ilya does has a point that making suggestions and code contributions to
the website/API code will now and then run in to unstated and
unpublished constraints due to the fact that we are currently not
running or building a general purpose google (or other) competitor, and
that is really not documented in any easy to find way. That is bound to
lead to tensions with enthusiastic potential contributors, and ends with
them blaming the messenger.

It undoubtedly would help if the board provided clarity in a formal
document (iirc the last statement on the matter likely goes back to
2011) on what the purpose and target audience of the website is (and
considering the recent push for the OSMF to start providing paid for
services, which the board is likely expecting other people to fend off,
a general outline of its business principles).

Simon

Am 20.02.2018 um 13:32 schrieb Heather Leson:
> Thanks for this conversation.
>
>
> I think it is also about clear pathways for engagement.
>
> A thought exercise:
> how might we reshape ourselves to improve software contributions? What
> is the vision we have to support the working groups and engage more folks
>
> Some ideas:
>
> -ask for software contributions that value their time
> -give credit/tell a good inclusive story
> -product/project management (1 hour, 3 hour, 5 times a month asks)
> -engage in human collaboration (kindness)
> -be a community manager
>
> I am with Joost on this 'root cause' opportunity - track ideas,
> iterative together, coordinate.
>
> Heather
>
> Heather Leson
> heatherleson at gmail.com <mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com>
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com <http://textontechs.com>
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Actually I think this is more  indicative of why software
>     development is so inefficient in OSM than anything else.
>
>     There are plenty of developers in OSM space, but when they do
>     something
>
>     - It is mainly ego driven, quite understandably so "if I spend my
>     free time on something, I want the glory", with the result that it
>     is nearly impossible to get people to work together on an existing
>     project,
>
>     - it is completely uncoordinated, the EWG just went through a
>     process of gathering and prioritising important tasks, Bryan
>     creates a parallel effort to bolster his election platform so we
>     end up with duplication of effort even at a meta level, not to
>     mention that most devs can't even be a****d to mention on the dev
>     list that they intend to work on something and by that don't get
>     important requirement information (for example information on GDPR
>     related requirements).
>
>     SImon
>
>
>     Am 20.02.2018 um 08:57 schrieb joost schouppe:
>>     This discussion shows once again how great we are at generating
>>     smart ideas. That definitely is not our problem. But all ideas
>>     are equal and will only get executed if the one who posited them
>>     executes them. As the project becomes more complex, that means
>>     you can either play in a corner by yourself, or try to effect
>>     change as an individual. It also means power to the devs and the
>>     time-rich, not to the community at large. None of which is optimal. 
>>     We need a way to turn a thread into competing ideas, and to turn
>>     winning ideas into actions. I'm not sure how we can do that, but
>>     I'm enthousiastic about Bryan Housel's just-do-it project of
>>     using a github issue tracker for that (see his position statement
>>     for the OSM-US elections [1]). I agree with emacsen that having
>>     such things run by a single developer is probably the worst
>>     possible solution, but I think this is a good enough idea to be
>>     worth a shot for being organised at OSMF level.
>>
>>
>>     1: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bhousel
>>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Bhousel>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     osmf-talk mailing list
>>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20180220/f0280cc9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20180220/f0280cc9/attachment.sig>