[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

tuxayo victor at tuxayo.net
Mon Jul 18 19:35:22 UTC 2016

On 18/07/2016 15:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> Il giorno 18 lug 2016, alle ore 00:01, tuxayo <victor at tuxayo.net> ha scritto:
>> If the edit was discussed and approved, then if after the fact, damage
>> that was considered acceptable is discovered. Or damage that doesn't
>> question the validity of the whole changeset (risk of many more damage
>> unnoticed).
> the fact that you discover some damage after the automatic edit, automatically leads to the assumption that there might be more of it which you simply haven't yet discovered.

If there is no reliable way to tell that there are no similar instances
of the discovered damaged object I agree that the damage can't be
considered acceptable by lack of info.

> [...]
> Often the people cleaning up the "clean-up" are not the same people that have done the initial cleaning, and considering that everybody is working on a volunteer basis,
> but that only the people doing the first clean-up are working in a
field they have chosen (while the DWG is "forced" to look at the
problems others have introduced in a field they have chosen)
> [...]

That's a good analysis because indeed as the DWG is the final (and
almost only used) place to report these issues. They are basically
compelled to fix them.

That's why not having enough resources has bad consequences. And I hope
we will be able to find a simple way to insert a process step before the
DWG to allow anyone to contribute handling these issues.
Because as DWG membership implies moderation rights, it restricts the
number of possible members due to the responsibility coming with it.
Which prevent some contributors having the time, will and skills to do
90% (the rest requires moderation rights) of the tasks in AECoC issues
handling process to participate.


More information about the talk mailing list