[OSM-talk] Import guidelines proposal update

[sly (sylvain letuffe)]

On jeudi 20 septembre 2012, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,

Hi,

> If the negative effects however affect other/different people - perhaps 
> because they are using the API outside of specifications, or causing 
> more work for people elsewhere in the project - then they can't.

I can only fully agree with that. 
But it don't think the changes to the guidelines I'm proposing are not abeying 
to that obvious pre-requist.
They are just not expressing it clearly because I'm only proposing to change 
the "Mandatory dedicated account for imports" and not the "guidelines to 
constuct local guidelines" which could be wrote in another paragraph. And 
this allready exist on chapter 8, 9 and 10 of the 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines

Which I am not proposing to change because those rules your are refering to 
should still be applied (and enforced) to all type of imports, even if some 
local community proposes otherwise, in which case, contact should me made 
with that community to tell it it is proposing invalid guidelines conflicting 
with general ones.

Real life exemple : during the redaction bot, any types of import have been 
forbiden, and one french contributor got blocked because importing in this 
period even if the information was made available globally and locally by all 
means we (french community) could.
The block is then perfectly justified, although we (french community) would 
have prefered to block him ourself, and sent him a french language message to 
explain why.

 
> There are very simple technical things. For example, assume that there 
> was a French DWG dealing only with French cases; we don't have the means 
> to set things up in a way that the French DWG can only block French 
> users. 

imho, and without any offense, your view on that is too technicaly narrowed 
and based on a lack of trust.
The technical feature "blocking a user" exists (no doubt about this ;-) ), 
what you are probably saying is that there is no technical way to narrow that 
right to block to a region ? Yet, the DWG group has this right ? why would 
you, and wouldn't I (or cquest) ? Because of this very lack of trust !
You don't have the technical mean to restrict, but you still have the means to 
do it : trust.
Just ask him to restrict himself at blocking cadastre imports, in France, and 
I'm sure he will respect that.
(Here I'm betting that by "French users" you meant "users operating in 
France", because if not, we are in a deep disagreeing)


> We don't even have a proper definition of local communities 
Not proper, and not for all doesn't mean we don't have a far enough definition 
for at least the french community and we are discussing here.
French community = people subscribe to talk-fr, participating in our forum or 
web site or members of our local fondation.

> So, what if a Toulouse mapper comes to 
> OSMF and complains that OSMF-FR is unfairly suppressing Languedoc 
> self-determination?
> 
> What if local communities decide stuff that is considered harmful to the 
> project as a whole by someone on the other side of the world? Who would 
> adjudicate such a conflict? Can the world-wide community be called to a 
> vote that is binding for France? Can the French community make a binding 
> rule for Toulouse? How many is a community, anyway? Do they have to be 
> incorporated? Do they have to be democratic? What if a national 
> community - as has been the case in the past with some Eastern European 
> national communities - takes a very liberal attitude towards copyright 
> ("the government web page says private use only but they never 
> prosecuted anyone...")? Can a national community make a deal with a 
> sponsor and allow the sponsor to carry the OSM logo?

In here, you are only expressing a fear from the futur, from things that 
haven't yet happen and that might never happen. 
Come on ! Have trust in the future and our (the world community) ability to 
solve problems as they come.
(And even more when my question, here, was returning back to rules that have 
been there for a long time. They might have prooved not enough, but not as 
bad as it is now for the french community)


> I think that your suggestion is too much like case law: 
> There's a rule that leads to a result you don't like, and then you amend 
> it with a little extra rule specifically for that purpose. 

You seam to forgot that, in the first place, someone from the DWG did exactly 
that : "changed a recommandation into a law that the same group is enforcing 
because a result was what it liked"
What I'm doing, is proposing something that is between (therefore the 
amendment of a special rule) what was, and what DWG wants.
Maybe because I'm used to it in France, but I suspect the case is the same 
elsewhere. Laws are made of a 1st version, and then dozen of amendments to 
counter it's bad effects we discover later, don't you think there is 
something good in it ?


> (In your  
> case, you have built a "regional limited import" special rule into the 
> "separate import account" rule, but what if tomorrow the French 
> community decides that they would like to be exempt from something else...?)

Every amendment needs a vote, or, if allergy to votes is too high in the osm 
community, discussions.
Please note that, even if I had the french cadastre "integration" in mind, the 
wording is made so that every other communities can have the same right.
I'm a bit scared by what your sentence may imply. Do you really think you can 
build a law once an for all, so that you don't have to go back to it later ?


> We should be discussing what rules we need at all, where we don't need 
> any rules, who makes these rules, how local communities come into play 
> there, and all that. This, I believe, takes a lot of time, and real, 
> committed, long-time work by a few individuals who really want to move 
> the project forward, rather than just a quick fix for a particular problem.

No problems, let's discuss. But while we do talk about a future rule, the 
previous one should (I mean "must") still apply until the new one is ready to 
replace it.
No need to say what was the previous rule right ?



-- 
sly
qui suis-je : http://sly.letuffe.org
email perso : sylvain chez letuffe un point org