[Osmf-talk] Board response: Disputed Area Policy (Crimea request)
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Fri Feb 8 10:55:58 UTC 2019
On Friday 08 February 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> You are being overly sensitive here. Next time the board says "we
> hope for a prosperous year for all our members" you'll also shout
> "mandate exceeded"?
That statement to me indicates you either have completely misunderstood
the core point of my statement or you deliberately distort it to
> > You here express you look forward to OSM
> > recording alternative views or opinions about the geography that
> > conflict with what is observable on the ground. This is not a
> > neutral statement, this is expressing a specific direction in which
> > you desire the community to move.
> "Desire to move" is perhaps too much. If the community doesn't move
> there we can't make them, but "it would be great to see that happen"
> is certainly true as far as I am concerned.
Yes, this is exactly what i understood it to mean. I did not mean to
say you actually put much pressure on the community (although Mikel
with his indication of incentives clearly tried to) but you definitely
expressed a clear desire what outcome of community discourse you prefer
which is different from expressing the wish that the community has a
healthy argument and establishes or re-affirms a consensus on the
matter but you don't mind what this consensus might look like.
> Being able to give everyone the boundary they are used to see will
> make OSM more usable for many people. [...]
Yes, i know this is by far the most widespread argument for replacing
the verifiability principle with a usefulness doctrine. As you
probably know i have written quite extensively on the matter some time
ago  where i indicated that this might actually turn out to be the
majority position in the OSM community even without intervention by the
OSMF board. But i also indicated that this would fundamentally change
the nature of the project away from a global egalitarian community of
And as you have probably seen from the discussion and comments of people
on the suggestions for recording boundary claims in OSM i am not the
only one who recognizes this to be a pretty fundamental question and
potentially a turning point for the project.
> How much do I have to pay you to admit I'm right? ;)
If you have to ask the price you can't afford it.
More information about the osmf-talk