[OSM-talk] Automated edits code of conduct

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Wed Jul 20 11:38:22 UTC 2016

Victor Grousset wrote:
> On 14/07/2016 17:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > The person proposing the automated edit isn't the best placed
> > person to weigh that up: they're already convinced of the desirability
> > of the edit (which is why they're proposing it).
> The person already weighed that up to decide that the benefit were 
> worth many hours in preparation, discussion, execution that will 
> possibly end up reverted.

Which doesn't mean they're automatically right.

I'm sure the person who did this automated dupe node merge spent many hours
preparing it, but they still fucked it up, and the damage is still there 6
years later.



View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Automated-edits-code-of-conduct-tp5877825p5878798.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the talk mailing list