[Osmf-talk] What's our USP? | Re: "Legitimacy from an election process to direct attention" – Your response to the question regarding Working Groups

[Mikel Maron]

I'm a little lost on this whole thread. Seems like we are trying to talk about some core issues to OSM -- that's good, and it would be good to get back to that! But I'm confused by some of the interpretations and all this arguing. So I'm first going to make another plea to move on from the "diversions" aside, then make a comment on Board scope, and finally a comment on the conceptual view of our community.


This whole aside about diversions. I don't know what prompted Heather's comment exactly or know if it was appropriate, or whether she meant "divisions" actually. I think it might have been Rory's comment (which she read as unwelcoming??). I just read Rory as blunt and not needing any comment, and read Heather as asking for peaceful discussion. Nevertheless, Rory has written in another email

> What I wrote could be interpreted as “Anyone who wants a map should leave OSM”, and that's totally not what I think, sorry for my poor communication. 🙁 Mea culpa. I attempted to (tersely) say “OSM provides more than “just” a map”.

Ok cool! But also, whatever. Does it matter? Can we just move on to something more substantive, or as Rihards suggested, you all who want to argue about it can get drunk offline the mailing list and maybe sing a song together?

When Michal used the word "direct", I think this was in context of technical operations, not mapping nor community building. Quoting...

> OSMF can use its soft power to direct attention toward things that the project needs operationally to succeed, such as:
> 
> 1) Ways for technical contributors to have their recommendations accepted
> 2) Capacity planning for OSM’s technical growth needs
> 3) Paid contractors to perform system and database tasks that OWG has prioritized

That's nothing revolutionary, and actually something many people are looking to the Board to do something about, and something many candidates (including me) mention in our statements. For the Board, that's not actually doing it, but facilitating it, and yes there's many ways to accomplish that. Looking at the Mission Statement (which is pretty good! Thank you to the Boards that worked on this), all of these points of OSMF Board scope seem appropriate.

    * Takes active steps to safeguard project relevance, future and success
    * Defines a strategic vision
    * Maintains a set of clear project goals, which may be a subset of all possible goals
    * Is ultimately responsible for having a durable infrastructure
    * Ensures Working Groups are meeting their responsibility
    * Reviews and is responsible for the budget



Regarding "craft" mapping and global South and East (which I don't think Michal meant as a specific dig at Russian mappers, but yes is a way overly broad reference what are sometimes labeled "developing" countries), I find the term "craft" so loaded as to be useless. I know Michal came up with this formulation originally, and I found it not useful then either.

The reality is that any efforts to use machine generated data have been well designed to assist humans to map, and that RapID in particular works great. No doubt if it was available when we held the first mapping party on the Isle of Wight in 2006, we would have happily used it, alongside walking, biking, and driving every part of the island to get details.

I do like Rory's interpretation of the word, and maybe we can focus on that, rather than the labels. I think this can apply whether mapping is a hobby or profession, or whether using GPS to survey or AI assisted road editing. It's a focus and a state of mind, rather than about your position or methodology.

> high quality, it means something made with care, something made by people, something made with dedication and passion, something made by someone who know what they're doing, by someone for the love of the craft, of the output.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron