[OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
rory at technomancy.org
Tue Aug 4 20:34:19 UTC 2020
The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?
On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves. See also:
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
More information about the talk