[Osmf-talk] Hosting OpenStreetMap source repositories on free software platforms

[steveaOSM]

On Apr 22, 2024, at 2:57 PM, b.kilhu+ytrwslnopdfujmrtjzkvsxweizfjncifmzdwwypiihjzdikulpnvql+- at gmail.com wrote:
> Let's get back to this question after no OSM contributor uses
> Facebook, Telegram, Slack or Gmail.com anymore, okay?

I'm one person, though I'm not alone in these sentiments:  I use none of the above softwares (no Facebook, no social media of any kind, though in the early 2000s I did succumb to what I consider the sort of "professional media" of LinkedIn, though I dislike it and using it, no Telegram, no Slack — though I have before with clients inside their sandbox, no Gmail...) and no GitHub (again, except for clients with a corporate account and only for the duration of the contract).  You might call me a Luddite, but it is 100% true that I eschew proprietary systems for my contributions to OPENStreetMap, for precisely the "philosophical objections" reasons stated.

We don't need to wait for all users to migrate away from these proprietary platforms, though the strong desire among many of our Contributors is made clear (as I do here yet again) that we choose not to use them.  While contributing code (or testing it / offering professional-level QA services) isn't something I do a lot of in OSM, not using proprietary platforms has not diminished my ability to be a productive Contributor to our project.  I realize this is more sticky for those who DO contribute / test code or other activities which are well-served by repository services (I've used many different flavors of these over decades), but I don't find it "hard to contribute to an open (source, data — the differences here are important) project" because I object to using NON-open platforms.  Most of us are mappers and contribute data to our data project, SOME of us contribute code, testing and other products / data / services which are more technical and "under-the-hood," though all of these contributions are important.  Also important is the HOW we contribute these; our methodologies cannot be ignored and the importance of relying upon proprietary platforms cannot be overemphasized at how we (slightly) "dull the edge" of being as Open as possible every time we use proprietary / non-open systems.

OSM better developing its open "repository and its collaboration software environments" is a "co-exist" situation.  We're not going to solve it by retreating to our respective corners of the playing field and staying "siloed" there, but if anybody, anywhere, were to launch and better-develop good methodologies to do this (and I see continuing good dialog right here to keep going in positive directions), it's OSM.  Again, Open is our first name.  Staying as open as possible, encouraging this, finding additional ways to allow this, make it happen, grow it bigger and better is what I'd like to see.  We can co-exist with proprietary platforms, that's simply the world we live in.  But we must also have alternatives, especially in "showcase" sub-projects in OSM where it would make sense to do so and use these as a launchpad to encourage more growth in this space.

Keep talking, everybody.