[OSM-talk] Effecting change in OpenStreetMap

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 21 November 2017, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>
> You can mask the issue by saying "you have to be humble and listen to
> others more and understand there is always somebody who know better",
> but with that, you kill any trace of motivation to effect change in
> OpenStreetMap.

My suggestion to "be a bit humble" was meant to avoid doing exactly that 
to others what you criticise is being done by "the core group", namely 
not assessing opinions and positions based on their merit but based on 
a feeling of superiority and group perception.

> Because people who know better will not try new things 
> — they are worried that things we already have will break. The whole
> core services group (people who maintain code and servers) have been
> working in the life-support mode for years. Any change should conform
> to all the current policies of OSM, which virtually say "no changes".
> Any proposal should not contradict any of existing wiki pages,
> especially if existing wiki pages contradict each other.

I think you are exaggerating a bit here but i also think there is some 
truth to the perceived structural conservativism based on fear to loose 
something (something that is dear to you or something you feel 
responsible for).  This is no different from big politics probably (why 
should it be after all).

The key to overcoming this is not to try running up against it (which 
would just increase the fear and strengthen the conservativism) but to 
create independent alternatives and demonstrate change is possible and 
worthwhile.  The good thing about OSM is that very little outside the 
main database and the API is strictly tied to the core systems.  Even 
for the wiki - if a group of people from the OSM community would decide 
to create an independent tag documentation system that is better 
structured, more logical and easier to understand that would not 
automatically become the authority in tagging questions of course but 
it would have weight as soon as mappers start using it as a guideline.  

Such endeavours are always a long shot of course and most attempts fail 
before they gain enough footing.  Most successes with that approach 
have some kind of larger outside backing (iD Editor is a good example i 
think).

But most importantly i firmly believe that embrancing the ideas of 
newcomers independent of their merit out of misguided friendliness is 
at least as bad as rejecting them because of fear of change or loss of 
power and influence.  This would be the path to universal mediocrity.

Which leads me to what i have already said: The only way to make good 
decisions is to have open arguments about the merits of the different 
ideas and where everyone is open to reasoning and ultimately the better 
argument wins.  This is hard but if it works it is worth it.  And of 
course the older people have more responsibility here than the 
newcomers.

> I don't care about failure of my proposals and pull requests. I care
> about OSM being an active, maintained, growing, ever-changing
> project. I believe I will see that — but I'd prefer it in 5 years,
> not in 50.

Not sure if you know this - but there is a famous quote by Max Planck i 
had to think of when reading this:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and 
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually 
die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (see 
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck)

Of course the turnover in people is much faster in OSM than in science 
(see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Active_contributors_year.png).  

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/