On 19/09/2012 12:04, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [..]
Thanks for the level-headed recapitulation - looks like we are moving
forward.
Firstly, the status of the import guidelines needs to become less ambiguous.
At present we have three largely overlapping policies ('Mechanical Edit
Policy', 'Automated Edits code of conduct', and 'Import/Guidelines') on the
wiki, which are not always easy to find or understand. These need to be
abbreviated into one short, simple, unambiguous document, one that reflects
both the majority will of the existing community and OSMF's responsibility
to encourage future mappers, and then signed off by the OSMF board.
Sounds reasonable. Is there an habitual OSM way to set up the working
group necessary to produce such document ? You can of course count on
the input of the French community.
debate is more likely to reach an amicable resolution if carried out in a
less combative fashion? "Assume good faith" and all that.
With a collaborative process working toward a policy document, all the
energy that poured out in debate will find a productive outlet.
I am sorry if you felt that some of us have been a bit too vindictive,
but the cadastre integration process represents such an amount of manual
processing that some of those who did it took understandable personal
offense that their work could be seen as just another botched mass
import. If their input can be taken into account in the drafting of an
inclusive policy covering massive edits, I'm sure that we'll soon be
over that episode.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
