[Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

Heather Leson heatherleson at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 13:28:12 UTC 2019

Martin, thank you. As mentioned,  I am working on that internal deadline.
The draft is currently under review.

How was your Saturday morning? Mine was writing and reviewing these drafts
on Crimea and other topics. I warmly remind you that consensus building
does take time. We are very much making every effort to meet the need.


Heather Leson
heatherleson at gmail.com
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com

On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:18 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> Am Mo., 28. Jan. 2019 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson <
> heather at osmfoundation.org>:
>> Dear Martin and Colleagues,
>> Since December, the Board has attempted to draft a public response. We
>> are still discussing.  I provided an update in the board meeting of January
>> 17, 2019 - https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2019-01-17
>> Since that time, I have tried again to get agreement from the Board on
>> the full details. We have a new board and there is much discussion about
>> the text.
>> I will try again tomorrow night to rewrite it and ask for permission to
>> share from the Board. Also, a quick note about the comments in Weekly OSM.
>> I am obliged to issue statements on discussions when the Board agrees to
>> the content of the statements.
>> Thank you,
>> Heather
> Dear Heather, dear Board,
> thank you for the update. I understand you are all volunteers and there
> are also other pressing issues at the moment. Still it is now a lot of time
> that has passed since Nov. 17 / Dec. 10, 2018, and we are in a kind of
> limbo, because the board, in apparent conflict with its own
> disputed-territories policy [1], reversed the Data Working Group decision
> just a few days before the 2018 board elections, but so far did not provide
> any kind of explanation or new policy to replace the former one.
> While it already felt quite strange on Dec. 10 that you just proclaimed
> the annulation of the well-founded DWG decision without providing any kind
> of explanations or motivations, it is now alarming that there are still no
> explanations. While we do not have many general rules with regard to
> mapping, the on-the-ground rule was certainly for many years the guiding
> principle and foundation of every "OpenStreetMapping", and assured us peace
> in problem areas, so deviating from it would seem such a major change of
> direction, that I could not believe my eyes when I read it and no
> explanation was provided along.
> Frankly, the way it was done, just before the upcoming elections of a new
> board, and without actually bringing it to an end, would probably be
> considered terrible political style, in the regions I am familiar with.
> My suggestion to the board would be to set yourself a deadline, until
> which you will try to reach consensus within the new Board, and if you
> cannot come to a common statement which supports the decision of the old
> Board, you should reenact the DWG decision so we can get back to normal
> operations.
> Cheers,
> Martin
> [1]
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190204/2e17710f/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list