[OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 21:06:01 UTC 2020

Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org> wrote: 

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 
corporate employees?

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:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-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:
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
> 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.

talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org

More information about the talk mailing list