[Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Rihards]

On 04.02.19 15:28, Heather Leson wrote:
> 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.

Huge thank you Heather and the board for handling this complicated topic.

> Heather
> 
> Heather Leson
> heatherleson at gmail.com <mailto:heatherleson at gmail.com>
> Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
> Blog: textontechs.com <http://textontechs.com>
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:18 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Am Mo., 28. Jan. 2019 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson
>     <heather at osmfoundation.org <mailto: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-- 
 Rihards