[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

[Allan Mustard]

Christoph, et al,

My responses are in line below.

apm

> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 21:30:04 +0200
> From: Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de>
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
> Message-ID: <202008042130.04395.osm at imagico.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it 
> does not control itself...
Please re-read the RFC that led to this proposal at
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/,
which includes the statement, "This request for comment is expected to
lead to adoption of community structures that will not answer to the
Board or be influenced by the Board, in keeping with the OSM philosophy
that the Board supports OSM but does not tell anybody what to map or how
to map." 
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected 
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in 
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members 
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from 
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
OSM has no political appointees.  We have volunteers who offer to serve
on working groups, panels, and committees, and in certain cases the
Board picks those it deems best qualified, while in others the bodies
are self-selecting.  The Board selected the members of the Diversity and
Inclusion Special Committee and the Microgrants Committee from among
volunteers, and that was not controversial.  
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to 
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the 
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping 
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess 
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters 
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is 
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate 
> data users.
Taking the latter point first, if you consider the conflict-of-interest
rules the Board has proposed for all OSMF-related bodies to be
inadequate, please offer alternative language.   Since the panel would
be an arm of the OSMF, it would quite likely need to adopt
conflict-of-interest rules in order to conform to the requirements of
the Companies Act, and might adopt rules similar to those of the DWG:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy 


As to the competence of panel members, I am surprised that you would
assume the Board would prefer incompetent candidates over competent
candidates.  I also remind you of this line in the proposal, "The Panel
will be empowered to enlist assistance of subject-matter experts to
study and resolve disputes, such as tagging presets."  Our community is
broad and enjoys great depth of knowledge and experience, and that
knowledge and experience could be tapped as needed to fill knowledge
gaps on the panel itself.

> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public 
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function 
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of 
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel 
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
Nominations could be public, if the community wanted that.  If you feel
strongly about that, put forward a positive recommendation to that
effect, please, and we will gauge the community reaction.

Board deliberations on selection of members would probably be private. 
Some laundry should not be aired publicly, and you certainly know that. 
There is a reason that in court cases, juries deliberate in private, and
not under public scrutiny; while hardly as critical to public order as a
jury trial, deliberations in the OSMverse that involve discussion of
individual members of our community and their fitness for a particular,
important role should not be open to the public. 

As far as how the panel would operate, that would be up to the panel to
determine, independently of the Board, so it is premature to make any
assumptions about that.  Again, if you have strong feelings about how
the panel should operate, now is the time to float them to the community
for comment.

-- 

> Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200804/e9654968/attachment.htm>