[OSM-talk] Breaking up is hard to do (was New Logo in the Wiki)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 05/04/11 19:34, Kai Krueger wrote:
> Wikipedia has a global foundation responsible for the maintenance of all
> databases and then local chapters who provide further support and services
> on top of that.
>
> OSM (can) works similar. There is a global database and various local
> chapters that provide a lot of additional services and help create a global
> community.

The difference is that in Wikipedia, there are actually separate 
instances of the core database (even if usually on the same 
infrastructure), and while they all share the same license (which they 
wouldn't even *have* to do), there are quite some differences. For 
example the German Wikipedia has introduced a system where an article 
will not be publicly visible unless approved by someone with special 
"approver" status, and the German Wikipedia has much stricter rules on 
what topics are "relevant" and therefore warrant an article than e.g. 
the English Wikipedia has.

These are decisions which have caused heated discussions, and people 
have left the project for that; so various "national" Wikipedias decided 
for themselves whether they wanted these things or not because (I 
assume) there would have been too much attrition had one tried to decide 
this for all of Wikipedia at once.

> There is only very few things that really depend on the global OSMF. The
> running of the core db server, the api and data licensing. Everything else
> can and already has been done independently.

The points you mention could be done independently if one really wanted 
to. For example, there is no technical reason why a slippy map cannot 
load some tiles from an Australian server and some from an American one. 
Or, if you prefer that, there is no reason why a centrally operated tile 
server cannot import American data from American minutely diffs and 
Australian data from Australian minutely diffs. Of course some things 
would become a little more complex (mostly technical issues), but others 
would become easier (mostly social issues). And as for licensing - as 
long as licenses are compatible in some direction, e.g. with the US 
database being PD, the Aussie database being CC-BY, and the European 
database being ODbL, one could perfectly well create tiles from them and 
so on.

Also - Steve - I dislike it when you say "break up one of the best open 
source projects", this sounds as if the project would be hurt in the 
process. Of course if there was reason to believe the project would be 
worse off after such a devolution, one wouldn't do it. But the way I see 
it, such a devolution could also bring a lot of advantages over and 
above what local chapters can bring.

And - Serge - I wasn't joking, but I wasn't recommending this to be put 
on the agenda for 2012 either. It certainly is a possibility and much as 
you say that it is interesting to think about what a notary is in 
various countries, it is also interesting to think about how one would 
participate in, and use OSM if it were devolved like that.

Bye
Frederik