[OSM-talk] BDFL & Moderation

[TimSC]

On 11/08/10 21:56, Liz wrote:
>
> There are a list of questions which have not been answered whether on osmf-
> talk or legal-talk or talk.
>    
I also find that is a problem with the mailing list, and when I contact 
the working groups. No definitive answer is provided, usually the 
discussion gets distracted to a side issue. Some answers are simply 
delayed because they depend on future events, and are not anyones fault. 
But for questions which have been addressed, I hope people will begin to 
reference the appropriate archived discussion to reduce repetition. This 
seemed to be a key point on that google talk on youtube that SteveC 
referenced [2].

Fortunately, the principle of "assume good faith" has appeared in the 
draft code of conduct. If someone raises a repeatedly raises a question, 
please assume they are sincere until they have been directed to the 
appropriate place in the archives.

> I am now considering OSMF as an annoying third party which has interspersed
> itself between myself and OSM. I have no original contract of any form between
> myself and OSMF.
>    
In the Subversion project (to use the google talk's example [2]), 
discussions may begin privately and are then moved to the public forum. 
Decisions are taken by consensus of all contributors in the public 
forum. This is different from OSMF's approach, particularly with respect 
to relicensing [3]. OSMF's committee approach is appropriate for very 
complex issues, but as much as possible should be done in a broader 
forum (if necessary, lead by respected community members). I think OSMF 
and the LWG are working with good intentions, I just don't agree with 
their methods on occasion.

But the role of OSMF is to support OSM [1]. By moderating the forums 
within well defined guidelines, I think they are fulfilling that role. I 
am not sure why the title "Benevolent Dictator For Life" is needed to 
moderate the forums. I would appreciate knowing what are the limits of 
this power? I expect it doesn't include the ability to override 
established OSM procedure. Perhaps the title "OSM discussion moderator" 
might be more appropriate, and enables SteveC to pass it along if necessary.

TimSC

[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSFDm3UYkeE
[3] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Questions_to_LWG_on_ODbL#Response_from_Mike_Collinson_on_ODbL_Adoption