[Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

manfred ma.reiter at gmail.com
Mon Feb 4 14:54:29 UTC 2019

Dear Heather, all,

I don't understand why there are still discussions within the board 
about Crimea.

1. when the decision was made (then), there was a certain set of 
parameters on which the board based its decision. They took place before 
the decision, didn't they?

2 Why is it now so difficult to communicate this decision with the 
underlying requirements?

The decision has been made. The only thing missing is the communication 
as to why it was (then) so decided.

I can tell you how (almost) my entire Saturday looked like. Voluntary 
work for OSM ;-)

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator

## Original ##

Ich verstehe nicht, warum es in Sachen Krim noch Diskussionen innerhalb 
des Boards gibt. Die haben doch wohl vor der Entscheidung stattgefunden, 

1. Als die Entscheidung (damals) gefallen ist, gab es einen bestimmten 
Satz an Parametern, aufgrund dessen das Board entschieden hat.
2. Warum ist es jetzt so schwer, diese Entscheidung mit den zugrunde 
liegenden Voraussetzungen zu kommunizieren?

Die Entscheidung ist doch gefallen. Einzig es fehlt die Kommunikation, 
warum sie (damals) so gefallen ist.

Ich kann Dir gerne sagen, wie (fast) mein gesamter Samstag ausgesehen 
hat. Freiwillige Arbeit für OSM. ;-)

## Ende Original ##

Am 04.02.19 um 14:28 schrieb Heather Leson:
> 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
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20190204/5870f8f5/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list