[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

tuxayo victor at tuxayo.net
Sun Jul 10 22:26:31 UTC 2016

On 10/07/2016 23:26, √Čric Gillet wrote:
> [...]
> However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG
> : the Automated edits code of conduct
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct> (AECoC).
> In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules :
>   * [...]
>   * Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment"
>   * [...]

About the question of legitimacy of the AECoC, I have one element to add.

I very recently had a discussion with our co-contributor and DWG member
woodpeck about a revert of 80 changesets from another contributor which
didn't discussed that massive amount of automated work. (which I agree
is an issue and that's not the point of this email)

One of the main topic of the discussion was that among the 80 reverted
changesets there were a handful of non automated ones that therefore
shouldn't have been reverted.
These collateral damage were due to the lack of time to review each
changeset and the fact that many of them didn't have a clear changeset
comment. (I'm not discussing here how hard it was to tell them apart,
that's why I'm not posting the links to the changetsets in question)

I was arguing that the rules for dealing with vandalism and the AECoC
don't state that these trade-offs was acceptable (a quick a inaccurate
summary but that's not the point of this email). And this resulted in
woodpeck editing the AECoC to add a part that would legitimize these
kinds of trade-offs and the resulting collateral damage:

Which raises huge concerns about the legitimacy of the AECoC and maybe
other parts of the wiki about community rules.

The discussion with woodpeck is still ongoing and he didn't had the time
yet to answer my concerns about that wiki edit. I hope I didn't too much
altered and biased our discussion when summarizing it.
@woodpeck: feel free to correct me. And sorry for posting this before
the end of our discussion but this debate is very close to what I was
planning to post here when we would have finished.


More information about the talk mailing list