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

ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk
Tue Jun 9 15:19:44 UTC 2020

On 09/06/2020 15:10, Allan Mustard wrote:
>> - Has this statement been discussed with and agreed on by Quincy and other iD authors?
> Yes. 

Thank you, we can end this discussion here and wait for comments from iD 
authors, then. Based on previous replies in this thread, it looked as if 
OSMF was misappropriating someone else's project under a threat of 
removing iD from osm.org, which I would find unacceptable.

>> 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.

Are decisions of this new body binding or advisory to the iD maintainer? 
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. 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?

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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200609/848ef53b/attachment.htm>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list