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

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 20:46:08 UTC 2020


Hey -- jumping in on a couple points from Clifford and Craig

> why is this limited to just iD developers?

As Allan said, this is where we started because iD comes up as an issue. If this approach was adopted and worked well for iD, it can be something for other parts of the OSM developer ecosystem to consider.

>   Not that the recommendations are not good, it is just that the approach seems a bit heavy handed in a peer to peer situation. I believe we should regard the report as a position paper, not as an instruction, and rewrite it as such.

It's definitely not intended as instructions, and I don't think iD maintainer have taken as such at all. They've been fully consulted prior to sharing it here. All these things are voluntary recommendations, and nothing is set in stone.

-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron






On Monday, June 8, 2020, 04:24:07 PM EDT, Craig Allan <allan at iafrica.com> wrote: 






Chair and Members,




1: A multi-purpose appeal process is a useful suggestion. I'd suggest it follows an escalating conflict resolution process, for example: mediation first, arbitration second and thirdly some limited appeal to higher authority.  It would be a service to the contesting parties, not a quasi-judicial body.  I'd also suggest that the conflict resolution service should be made a formal, well specified function of a committee of the OSMF on the grounds that if it is not someone's job then nobody will do it.





2: A formal curation process for tags would be very welcome. I think the exploratory approach of 'any tags you like' has worked, but now has had its day. The issues with iD are largely an outcome of this problem. The next phase is to put in place a formal specification for tags serviced by a proper process to manage tag create-amend-delete events. I predict that editor and renderer developers will weep with joy if this is passed.




3: I don't think OSMF as a body should be making recommendations to the iD team in a public report.  Not that the recommendations are not good, it is just that the approach seems a bit heavy handed in a peer to peer situation. I believe we should regard the report as a position paper, not as an instruction, and rewrite it as such.  I do understand that there have already been consultations with the iD team and they have seen the document in its current form so this comment may be a bit late and possibly ill-informed..





best regards

Craig ALLAN

(OSM: cRaIgalLAn)








On 2020/06/05 23:46, Allan Mustard 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 MustardChairperson, OSMF Board of Directors



_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk




_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list