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

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Jun 9 08:01:16 UTC 2020


Hi,

On 6/9/20 02:53, ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk wrote:
> 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.

I think that we (the OSMF) give the independent iD project a huge
platform by making it the default editor that people are sent to when
they click "Edit" on our web page. (Would anyone go to a web site called
"ideditor.com" to edit OSM?)

It is obvious that this comes with responsibilities. To pick an extreme
example just for the sake of argument, if iD were to display an
advertising banner to generate revenue, or transmit the activities of
OSM mappers to another web site for harvesting, that would force us to
drop iD from our web page immediately, and with that, the iD project or
at least the part that deals with OSM would vanish into oblivion.

So there is a contract here: The iD team makes a good editor, and the
OSMF defines the decision making envelope for the iD team - some things
they can just do to their liking because they don't affect the "iD is
the official OSM(F) default editor" status, but other decisions they
might want to make are outside this envelope and OSM needs to be given a
say.

That is not meddling with their affairs or "crippling down a good tool",
it is just a necessary sharing of responsibilities.

> 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). 

We are having this discussion because the assumption that if someone is
a good programmer they will also be good with gauging the will of the
OSM community has proven wrong; iD is a good editor but the iD team has
too often treated the community with contempt (to the point of openly
violating the code of conduct that the iD team had given themselves) and
ignored valid concerns. The relationship hence cannot continue on trust
alone.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the talk mailing list