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

Yuri Astrakhan yuriastrakhan at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 21:30:18 UTC 2020


Mikel, I might be misunderstanding what you meant, but in my opinion
conformity is required for this type of project, and I do hope iD/JOSM/...
help us achieve that. To clarify:

* features with the same meaning (type) should be mapped the same way,
otherwise each consumer must understand all of them, and only large
corporations will be able to hire enough people to parse & handle it all.

* it should be relatively simple for the community to add new types, and
later to converge on how to map that new type, thus becoming a new
"standard".

* multiple editors should encourage users to map the same types of features
in the same way.

So yes, conformity is good because it allows us (consumers) to make sense
of the data without having an army of developers.

Hope I'm making sense here, and stating the obvious. Captain out. :)


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200804/a4bbcb64/attachment.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list