[OSM-talk] Potlatch and the destruction of good work (N6 Ireland)
tom at compton.nu
Wed Aug 8 23:31:58 BST 2007
In message <b5f0f61d0708081446r77df40bfkd6adac75cdf9771d at mail.gmail.com>
"Dermot McNally" <dermotm at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/08/2007, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> > The situation (as unfortunate as it is) is that I have no authority
> > to release that information, and indeed under UK data protection laws
> > it would quite likely be illegal to do so.
> I understand that. One option (for my selfish purpose) would be for
> you to contact the mapper and urge him/her to contact me, but that
> would set a precedent that would make you the correspondence secretary
> for a whole bunch of us and I'm not sure I'd want that if I were in
> your shoes :-)
Obviously that is possible, but I have been trying to avoid it for
precisely the reasons you mention.
> > I'm all for that, but it isn't something we can retrospectively
> > force onto existing mappers without their consent.
> After the first incident, it was suggested on this thread (by
> Frederik?) that a process of migration would offer a route to a better
> place. This would essentially involve:
> 1. All newly-registering mappers will not have the option of private edits.
> 2. All existing mappers would be urged to migrate their settings to
> reveal their username (just enough info to make them contactable).
Before we do any of this (and this overlaps with your next point) we
really need to document precisely what the policy is to be going
forward so that we have something concrete to get people to agree to.
We did discuss this on IRC recently and there seemed to be agreement
would detail what information we collect and how it will be used.
Somebody should probably start a wiki page to develop such a document
if they want to move this forward.... (obviously it should be put
somewhere less volatile than the wiki once it is complete).
> 3. Possible review of exactly how public public edits are (to address
> any legitimate privacy concerns of existing mappers that may be
> reluctant to migrate). One item that had arisen in this context was
> the connection of uploaded track logs with a visible username.
I don't think there is an issue here - there is an entirely separate
flag for each trace to indicate whether or not it is public.
> 4. After an elapsed time TBD, disable the accounts of any mappers not
> yet exposing their usernames (or disable their edits until they
This is probably the main contentious issue.
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
More information about the talk