[Osmf-talk] microgrants - second draft policy document

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 14 January 2020, Joost Schouppe wrote:
>
> Whether or not the detailed edit data - should- be shared is another
> matter. I think it could be useful, as it would help for our members
> to have a closer understanding of how the board works and who stands
> where. But it can also be misleading: for example someone might make
> an edit after wider discussion, a compromise that does not reflect
> their personal point of view at all.

Well - if you have the discussion in public that would be a non-issue.
Also note version managed systems usually have something like commit
comments that allow explaining the meaning of changes.

I think you should have faith in the community to be able to deal with
transparent information you provide.  The problem is usually not what
is publicly visible creating a wrong impression, it is that what is not
visible (in your example the discussion) makes what is visible (the
edit history) being potentially misinterpreted.

> Apart from that, I do think
> there are situations where there is a trade-off between transparency
> and efficiency.

I would challenge you to demonstrate that.  And don't make the mistake
of confusing efficiency with convenience.  If you are used to a certain
way of working it may be subjectively efficient to continue that
because it is convenient.  But it is not objectively more efficient.
In my other reply to Allan i explained quite in length various
advantages of keeping an edit history of documents.

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