[OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk
Tue Jun 9 00:53:01 UTC 2020

On 08/06/2020 21:41, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
> The OSMF board is asking for comments on possible approaches to
> resolving controversies related to upgrades to and modifications of the
> iD editor. Please read the post by Allan Mustard:
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/

These are some very strong statements. Questions to Allan:

- Is this an official statement of the whole OSMF board? Who was in 
favor of it and who was against?

- Is there any OSMF funding or other support for iD development 
involved? If so, can you provide the numbers?

- Has this statement been discussed with and agreed on by Quincy and 
other iD authors?

Basically, can you please explain why do you think you should be able to 
influence decisions of the iD maintainer without forking the code, 
maintaining it yourself and in the end competing with iD on a level 
playing field.

For the record (if it wasn't obvious yet) I am strongly against this 
idea. I trust iD authors, even if I don't agree with _all_ their 
decisions, more than the committee you are proposing. The success of iD 
is a proof their vision for the tool development and its feature set are 
working very well (perhaps too well, which is why we are having this 
discussion). I am concerned that by alienating the authors and forcing 
all the ideas they would normally reject, you would be able to inflict a 
real damage on iD and, by extension, on OSM.

My suggestion: rather than crippling down a good tool please focus on 
improving parts of the ecosystem that are in urgent need of investment. 
Official mobile app/editor, the default web map or an infrastructure 
that would enable others to use OSM-hosted tiles come to mind.


More information about the talk mailing list