[Osmf-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

Allan Mustard allan at mustard.net
Mon Jun 8 19:49:12 UTC 2020


Thanks for your comments.  As for "why the Foundation decided to focus
just on the iD editor," at the moment it is the only software product
integral to the project that appears to evoke significant volumes of

Most of your other questions are valid but do not have answers.  This
RFC is intended to solicit views from the OSM community as to how
governance of iD should / could work. I look forward to reading
additional responses from the community.

Code of Conduct for the entire Foundation remains at issue, and is
beyond the scope of this RFC.  The RFC focuses on iD and problems that
have arisen related to iD.


On 6/8/2020 2:21 PM, Clifford Snow wrote:
> My apologies, I sent my last message before barely even getting
> started. Let me start again.
> Allan,
> Thanks for asking the community for input on these issues.
> I'm curious why the Foundation decided to focus just on the iD editor.
> Is there a reason why the Foundation doesn't feel that similar
> projects should have the same governance? I do applaud the
> consideration of creating a body to adjudicate disputes with software
> projects. Does such a body suggest that the Foundation will enter into
> agreements, much like the Local Chapters agreement with all
> developers? Where this agreement stipulates the rights and
> responsibilities of each organization and individual?
> In the document, it states /OSMF recommends iD hold a quarterly (or
> so) video meeting with iD stakeholders. /Who are those stakeholders? 
> Again, why is this limited to just iD developers?
> The next section asking iD developers to improve clarity of decision
> making and communication. Again, why is this just limited to iD
> developers.
> Lastly, the final paragraph recommends iD document how its Code of
> Conduct is handled. I would strongly suggest rewording that to
> describe how the Foundation will implement a Code of Conduct that
> covers all elements of OpenStreetMap including developers, mailing
> lists, in person and video meetings. Today when anyone asks, they are
> pointed to the Foundation's etiquette guidelines. But exactly as was
> pointed out with iD, where is the reporting process for the
> Foundations etiquette guidelines?  I strongly urge the Foundation to
> use this time to correct this shortcoming and to formally implement a
> Code of Conduct process. 
> As a member of the OSM US Code of Conduct committee, I would like to
> clarify that we are not a private committee. Our names are published
> on the wiki [1]. 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States
> Respectfully,
> Clifford Snow
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:47 PM Allan Mustard <allan at mustard.net
> <mailto:allan at mustard.net>> wrote:
>     Dear OSMF Members,
>     Please find attached a request for comment on possible approaches
>     to resolving controversies related to upgrades to and
>     modifications of the iD editor.  Please send back any responses
>     via this mailing list.
>     Thank you.
>     Allan Mustard
>     Chairperson, OSMF Board of Directors
>     _______________________________________________
>     osmf-talk mailing list
>     osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
> -- 
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us <https://www.snowandsnow.us>
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200608/6bcae392/attachment.htm>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list