[Osmf-talk] microgrants - second draft policy document

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 14 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > No, the purpose of version management is not to do everything in a
> > single application, it is to keep a record of all the different
> > edits and conversions that happen.
>
> Are you saying that not only do you want to know what has changed
> between today's version and last month's version, but you also want
> to know about all the changes in between that might not even have
> made it into the release, and to know exactly which person made which
> edit when?

There are two separate questions here:

a) if and why i think the detailed edit history of a policy document
draft of the OSMF should be recorded and
b) if that is the case if and why i think this edit history should be
available to the members.

My answer is yes to both questions.  The reasoning:

a) recording the history of edits is of high value for those involved in
the actual document development as well as its evaluation and QA.
Every programmer and wiki user probably knows this.  It allows for
re-tracing the modifications to find the source of problems to be able
to fix them, it allows asynchroneous modifications and facilitates
division of work (someone editing the document while someone else is
not present and the second person can afterwards easily see what
exactly has been changed in what order) and it facilitates continuity
when the people working on a document change (like after a board
election) and it simplifies assigning tasks (like person A has
originally written part X which has later been modified by person B so
A and B are probably the people most qualified for making necessary
adjustments to that part).  It also simplifies communication (if
someone has trouble understanding what a certain formulation is meant
to express they can ask specifically the person who wrote it). And it
also often immensely helps with QA in general if you can see individual
edits one by one.

b) it follows the principle of transparency by default (everything
should be done in the open unless there are good and publicly
documented reasons why it should not be in this specific case) and it
facilitates necessary oversight and cooperation.  Like for example in
case of the LWG attribution guideline draft where it would be important
to have a record of the "six text options for multiple attribution
text" which were discussed according to the LWG meeting minutes - both
for the members to exercise oversight over the OSMF work and for the
board if and when they are in the position to evaluate the draft.  It
would also immensely help to get community members more interested in
OSMF work if they can follow the actual policy design work more
closely.  And finally it would also be a huge factor for the legitimacy
of any policy documents since the community is used to an open work
culture (for mapping obviously but also for writing documentation and
rules) and being able to follow how exactly a document came into being
is very helpful and reassuring compared to a document that came out of
the blue with no publicly visible documentation for how it came to say
what it ultimately says.  In other words:  By not doing document
development work in the open like it is mostly custom in the community
otherwise the OSMF would distance itself from the community whose
interests it is meant to represent.

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