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

ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk
Tue Jun 9 10:32:58 UTC 2020

On 09/06/2020 09:01, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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?)

Thank you, I couldn't find any "or else" in the blog post and was 
wondering what that could be.

To me, OSMF wants the control of a project it hasn't developed but 
turned out too successful to ignore, and to add insult to injury you are 
asking the author to keep working on it by committing patches he 
disagrees with.

I see several problems with it:

- It's deeply unethical. OSMF should foster the development of the OSM 
ecosystem, not harass people working on it. How does this fit OSMF own 
charter and CoC?

- Taking control from the original authors would slow down, if not 
stall, the development of iD.

- Giving the control to a committee would steer the development in a 
different direction (as in: "different from the current, good 
direction"). At very least it would give an excuse for rejected ideas to 
be pushed again.

Frankly, I would rather have iD hosted elsewhere and being developed 
further to the benefit of a broader OSM community.

Better yet, talk to each other and come up with a workable plan. OSMF 
proposal is very one-sided and disproportional, what is _OSMF_ willing 
to compromise on to improve cooperation?



More information about the talk mailing list