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

Allan Mustard allan at mustard.net
Tue Jun 9 14:10:41 UTC 2020

Replying to Ndrw:

> These are some very strong statements. Questions to Allan:
> - Is this an official statement of the whole OSMF board? Who was in favor of it and who was against?
Yes, the RFC is an official request for comment by the whole OSMF
board.  It was drafted collectively and approved by consensus.  There
were no dissenters.
> - Is there any OSMF funding or other support for iD development involved? If so, can you provide the numbers?
> - Has this statement been discussed with and agreed on by Quincy and other iD authors?
> Basically, can you please explain why do you think you should be able to influence decisions of the iD maintainer without forking the code, maintaining it yourself and in the end competing with iD on a level playing field.
The OSMF Board does not intend to and will not "influence decisions of
the iD maintainer".  The OSMF Board intends to create a dispute
resolution mechanism so that harassment of the iD developers ends.  The
OSMF Board will not be part of the dispute resolution mechanism, once it
is created.
> For the record (if it wasn't obvious yet) I am strongly against this idea. I trust iD authors, even if I don't agree with _all_ their decisions, more than the committee you are proposing. The success of iD is a proof their vision for the tool development and its feature set are working very well (perhaps too well, which is why we are having this discussion). I am concerned that by alienating the authors and forcing all the ideas they would normally reject, you would be able to inflict a real damage on iD and, by extension, on OSM.
Thank you for your opinion.  The dispute resolution mechanism, as
previously explained to you, would be invoked by the developers
(maintainers) at their option.  It would not "force" anything on them. 
Your concerns in this regard are groundless.
> My suggestion: rather than crippling down a good tool please focus on improving parts of the ecosystem that are in urgent need of investment. Official mobile app/editor, the default web map or an infrastructure that would enable others to use OSM-hosted tiles come to mind.
Thank you for your suggestions.  Those issues are outside the scope of
this RFC.
> Ndrw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200609/108719e0/attachment.htm>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list