[Osmf-talk] Board response: Disputed Area Policy (Crimea request)
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Thu Feb 7 22:22:08 UTC 2019
On Thursday 07 February 2019, Mikel Maron wrote:
> By OSMF mission statement, I think you are referring to this phrase
> > the OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for-profit
> > organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap
> > Project.
No, i am not, i am referring to the whole document:
> [...] This was simply an encouraging statement
> from the Board about the recent work on new ways to address disputed
> boundaries in the map.
No, as i said you as the OSMF board are expressing a desire in which
direction you would like the OSM community discourse to develop and
this way influence the discourse and taint the process. Given members
of the board have just a few days ago expressed concern that prominent
voices in the OSMF create an inbalance in discourse here that is fairly
ironic (and removes any credibility of that concern).
> [...] Should that work proceed (and I hope it does!) I
> can imagine many ways the OSMF can support. Not least of which might
> be deploying updates to software components. Or distributing a
So to the expression of clear preferences of the board what it would
like the OSM community to map (i.e. disputed boundary claims) you add a
suggestion of bribery for doing as you desire. Not to mention the
implicit indication that microgrants will not be granted by an
independent body but by the board.
> Or welcoming a talk or BoF at the State of the Map.
So no hope for the SotM program being developed by an independent
program committee without the board taking influence...
More information about the osmf-talk