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

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Jun 9 10:45:32 UTC 2020




Jun 9, 2020, 12:32 by ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk:

> 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
>
Overall iD is a great editor and it should continue to be available on the OSM website.

But for many people "iD editor claimed X" is the same as "OSM claimed X".
OSMF having at least some very tenuous control over the most important part of the
OSM website is not surprising.

> - It's deeply unethical. OSMF should foster the development of the OSM ecosystem, not harass people working on it
>
Describing what is proposed in this document as harassment seems weird to me.

> 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?
>
Given that current state is that OSMF gave 100% control over the default editor to iD developers,
how OSMF may concede further?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200609/ff367503/attachment.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list