[Osmf-talk] Board response: Disputed Area Policy (Crimea request)
danstowell at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 22:35:16 UTC 2019
Op do 7 feb. 2019 om 22:24 schreef Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>:
> 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
> > microgrant.
> 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...
Christoph, your messages sound more and more vindictive. ("bribery"
"no hope" "credibility" etc)
Please stop. You've made your points. Maybe others will support you.
More information about the osmf-talk