[OSM-talk] Review of name and boundary tagging - revised and amended guidelines to address and resolve disputes
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Mon Jul 12 14:17:38 UTC 2021
@Frederik & @Christoph, all for clarification,
The intend of my previous mail, as in approach and proposal, was to find
some acknowledgement that it is desirable and makes sense to invest a
lot of effort and time, both by the initiator(s) and those who wish and
able to participate.
In a short time I tried to sketch an initial base content from where to
start and which aspects we want to address, describe a feasible scope.
The request to express support, at this time, is to find out if the
approach through a proposal process, with a specific voting procedure
(anonymous and inclusive) is viable, engaging and inclusive. In my
personal opinion it can be and at this time the most suitable.
We all know it's short comings, they have been expressed and objected to
in multiple channels. Challenges, the procedures and proposals which
create change, by nature mostly engage a majority of conservatism and
denial. That is why I requested to express your support only, to find
out if my preference can be a suitable vehicle to start a process and
has enough engagement at this time to make sense and chance to be
completed, whatever the outcome may be.
So your comments and opinions are respected, known and repeated multiple
times, taken into account, shared by many. The proceedings and
procedures we use in OSM have significant shortcomings, proven over time
in multiple incidents. We can only improve, reduce the escalation and
support our communities freedoms and inclusiveness through a process of
change, as our community changes over time, in all aspects. Especially
the experience and views of Frederik & Christoph, is of major importance
both as it has had a large impact and shaped OSM to what it has become
now, as in a resource for lessons learned.
I prefer in my communication to express myself avoiding to complicated
terms, use concrete examples, in an attempt to include as much as
possible other language groups, community members who had less
educational opportunities. So please, don't focus on UN or IHO as being
the final solution, but rather as a base frame, a starting point to
address the following issues, in the context of names and boundaries:
A. where are the limits of "on the ground truth" and "verifiability" in
OSM, we have a delineated base definition for both, but there is a need,
opportunities to make the room for interpretation more narrow;
B. how far, what is the scope of "local", "local interests", when does
the broader, world interest and opinion prevail;
C. if the above fail to reach a consensus, what is the fall back
scenario. Do we define a reference framework, like the UN or others ? Is
a voting procedure, compliant with privacy regulations, protection of
peoples physical well-being as well as freedoms of political, cultural,
religious and sexual opinion and expressions through anonymity,
inclusive and fair in terms of representation for minorities and
indigenous communities ? As a community what fall back scenario do we
have, how is it implemented.
So, with your understanding of the above, please express your positive
intend to cooperate, engage and willingness to contribute with:
1. the proposal process with wiki discussion pages (in multiple
languages as far as feasible), both as most suitable in terms of
procedure as historical registration;
2. an adopted voting process, not the voting process which we currently
have. Accepted, adopted or abandoned;
3. the talk-tagging mailing list (as the most popular and engaging) wiki
discussion pages (in multiple languages as far as feasible);
4. the initial base frame as described, with UN and possible other
candidates as reference frames for fall back scenarios. A base frame
which will be accepted, adopted or abandoned.
Greetings, regards and respect to all of you,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk