[OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
frederik at remote.org
Tue Jun 9 11:55:17 UTC 2020
On 2020-06-09 12:32, ndrw6 at redhazel.co.uk wrote:
> To me, OSMF wants the control of a project it hasn't developed but
> turned out too successful to ignore,
The iD editor has been originally built by Mapbox funded by a grant from
the Knight Foundation with the aim of being a good editor for OSM. That
was before any of the people currently driving iD development came on
board. Had it been "some GIS editing software that might or might not be
used for OSM one day", it is very unlikely that this grant would ever
have been given. iD was never a project that would have been viable
without the OSMF's blessing (as in "if you get this editor to work then
we'll put it on our web site").
> and to add insult to injury you are
> asking the author to keep working on it by committing patches he
> disagrees with.
As far as I am aware, both former and current iD lead developers are
doing their work within a full time IT job, not in their spare time.
Their employer - US tech firms in both cases - asks them to spend time
on iD because their employer wants to help OSM improve. Most employment
situations bring it with them that you have to do something you disagree
with now and then. We do not know what instructions the paid iD
developers receive from their employers but it is obvious that they
*could* receive instructions.
Now, of course as long as everything purrs along smoothly, good software
is created for a happy user base by happy developers and nobody
interferes, that's all dandy. But if push comes to shove, and someone
needs to decide how something is done, do we want US tech firms to
decide what the official OSM editor does, or do we want the OSMF to
decide what the official OSM editor does?
> - 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?
I think you have a very warped view of the whole topic. Given that I
haven't seen you on these lists before I must assume that you haven't
followed any of the history, background, and past discussions about the
matter. You're of course entitled to your point of view but your point
of view doesn't really do much for the discussion when it is, obviously,
based on the mistaken assumption that iD is a third-party hobby project
that OSMF now wants to nefariously take control of because it has proven
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the talk