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

Mikel Maron mikel.maron at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 21:53:20 UTC 2020


More seriously the line “all interests of the OSM community” was one we talked a lot about on the board when writing this message, and had several versions, and indeed we touched on how to best designate what was needed in composition of the panel. I think it’s not possible to put together a specific formula, but think we should expand this section to touch on the kinds of things we would hope to see in the composition of the board. That certainly would be experience and expertise with OSM community and software development and mapping. I don’t think anyone is impartial on anything but we’d want people who are recognized as open minded.
We haven’t talked at all about transparency of selection and deliberations. I’m not sure it’s wise to be completely open in the work of disputes, but certainly having deliberations well minutes and explained makes sense.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:42 PM, Mikel Maron <mikel.maron at gmail.com> wrote:

It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion we’ve had on the board.
And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter.
I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:

Re: "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?"
This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns.
While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals.
If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community. 
As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." 
– Joseph Eisenberg
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 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

_______________________________________________
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/d6f7477d/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list