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

Allan Mustard allan at mustard.net
Tue Jun 9 15:34:55 UTC 2020


On 6/9/2020 11:19 AM, ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk wrote:
>
> Are decisions of this new body binding or advisory to the iD maintainer?
>
If this RFC should lead to creation of an adjudication body, since the
maintainer would ask for adjudication, presumably the maintainer would
accept the decision as binding.  If not, what would be the point of
requesting adjudication?
>
> If they are binding that is effectively a transfer of project
> governance away from the current maintainer - I have no problem with
> it as long as he is happy with it, or if OSMF decides to fork iD and
> maintain it separately.
>
The iD developers have pointed out that they have no agenda of their
own, and in modifying and enhancing iD seek consensus views of the OSM
community.  Thus governance would thus remain where it is, in reality:
in the OSM community.
>
> Below you wrote that the dispute resolution can be invoked by the
> "developers (maintainers)" - can you be more specific? Can _any_
> contributor whose proposal has been rejected trigger this procedure?
>
This question confuses me.  Developers/maintainers would be able to
submit any controversy for adjudication.  Rejection is not in the
picture.  What exactly is your point?
>
> The reason iD is appealing to beginner users is a combination of its
> availability (an online tool) and a well thought out and simple work
> flow. The latter shouldn't be taken for granted - a few well meaning
> yet wrong changes can make the tool far less usable than it is now. A
> hundred of them will kill it.
>
I concur.  If you look at my edit history, you will see that iD is my
preferred editor.
>
> Ndrw
>
apm



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list