On 08/06/2020 21:41, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
The OSMF board is asking for comments on possible approaches to
resolving controversies related to upgrades to and modifications of the
iD editor. Please read the post by Allan Mustard:
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/06/08/toward-resolution-of-controversies-related-to-id/
These are some very strong statements. Questions to Allan:
- Is this an official statement of the whole OSMF board? Who was in
favor of it and who was against?
- Is there any OSMF funding or other support for iD development
involved? If so, can you provide the numbers?
- Has this statement been discussed with and agreed on by Quincy and
other iD authors?
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.
For the record (if it wasn't obvious yet) I am strongly against this
idea. I trust iD authors, even if I don't agree with _all_ their
decisions, more than the committee you are proposing. The success of iD
is a proof their vision for the tool development and its feature set are
working very well (perhaps too well, which is why we are having this
discussion). I am concerned that by alienating the authors and forcing
all the ideas they would normally reject, you would be able to inflict a
real damage on iD and, by extension, on OSM.
My suggestion: rather than crippling down a good tool please focus on
improving parts of the ecosystem that are in urgent need of investment.
Official mobile app/editor, the default web map or an infrastructure
that would enable others to use OSM-hosted tiles come to mind.
Ndrw
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
