[OSM-talk] Import guidelines & OSMF/DWG governance
Eric Marsden
eric.marsden at free.fr
Tue Sep 18 20:58:41 BST 2012
>>>>> "fr" == Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> writes:
fr> I welcome a discussion about rules - which ones we need, who makes
fr> them, who executes them. It is clear that we need *some* rules,
fr> but until now there's no formal community process to create or
fr> amend such rules.
fr>
fr> I'm happy to hear any suggestions that people might have. How can
fr> the will of the community be caputured and distilled into a rule -
fr> and where should we work without any rules? In what areas do we
fr> have to have rules that govern all of OSM, and in what areas can
fr> we afford to defer to local communities?
Thank you for addressing this issue in a constructive manner.
Rather than (or before) discussing rules, it seems to me that it would
be useful to start by establishing some basic principles which could
guide OSMF activities. Below are a few principles which are widely
accepted as foundations for good governance of community-based
endeavours.
- Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque,
though some have improved over the last year by posting open
minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I
applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF
are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for
everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an
account block. But historical information such as the number of
blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to
monitor for admin abuse).
- Subsidiarity. OSMF and its working groups should only perform
those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more
immediate or local level. Discussions with contributors who seem
to need assistance should be delegated to the local community
(OSMF should endeavor to establish a network of formal
correspondants per country/region, and use country-wide osm
mailing lists otherwise). OSMF could assist local communities by
giving them access to tools designed to detect vandalism or large
numbers of errors.
- Consultation and dialogue. OSMF and its working groups should
always seek input from contributors and other interested parties
before making decisions.
- Proportionality. Any sanctions imposed by OSMF representatives
(such as account blocks) should be proportional to the damage
incurred or intended. [This is one principle which OSMF seems to
respect.]
- Accountability. OSMF representatives who are given special
privileges (such as the ability to block contributor accounts)
must be accountable for their actions.
- Respect for contributors' privacy. This seems easy to understand,
and I am happy with OSMF's performance in this area.
--
Eric Marsden
More information about the talk
mailing list