Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 09/06/2020 18:40, Simon Poole wrote: [snip] Based on information in this thread and private conversation with some of OSMF members, it looks like Mapbox has treated the iD project as owned by OSMF from the beginning. Furthermore, I've been told iD maintainers are happy with the proposed arrangements, so everything is clear. The blog post is then not about changes to the governance but our internal rules for maintaining the project. Having said that, (speaking as a user) please refrain from making radical changes. The iD project is being run well and there wouldn't want to change _that_. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Thanks Mikel, Johns talk from 2014 is great for a backgrounder on the ID project. Well worth watching and all the comments are equally true today as they were back in 2014. Cheers - Phil -Original Message- From: Mikel Maron Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2020 4:56 AM To: talk@openstreetmap.org; nd...@redhazel.co.uk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD > Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the > original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred > from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still > retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care > about them)? Ownership is a nebulous concept here. The original repo was hosted by RichardF under https://github.com/systemed/, and now is at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD. Mapbox employees contributed under open source licensing terms, and have certainly been keenly involved in setting the initial project concept and direction. That was all done with a lot of intention within the OSM community. Launch blog from that time https://blog.mapbox.com/new-map-editor-launches-on-openstreetmap-org-13956033d0c9. And John Firebaugh's talk at OSM US 2014 is a great perspective on Mapbox's approach (and what it takes to do software development in OSM) https://2014.stateofthemap.us/session/implementing-change-in-openstreetmap/ Mapbox continued to support the development of iD with developer time, but not with a posture of setting direction as a company. The desire for Mapbox was and continues to be that iD continues to serve its purpose to provide a great mapping experience in OSM. So Mapbox never "owned" iD, and it's unclear if you can assign that concept. If you had to say who owns it, then it is OpenStreetMap, and that yes OSMF has the responsibility to make sure it has a healthy development and community environment. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 12:06:21 PM EDT, wrote: On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote: > Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody > working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox > received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to > start growing the company to its current size, so while we are > obviously thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the > years, it was clearly a win-win situation. Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care about them)? The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and ownership of the project are not the same thing. > Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a > million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in > any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, > doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens > to be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if we really, really want it. From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies are all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that the maintainers are doing their job. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
> Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the > original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred > from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still > retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care > about them)? Ownership is a nebulous concept here. The original repo was hosted by RichardF under https://github.com/systemed/, and now is at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD. Mapbox employees contributed under open source licensing terms, and have certainly been keenly involved in setting the initial project concept and direction. That was all done with a lot of intention within the OSM community. Launch blog from that time https://blog.mapbox.com/new-map-editor-launches-on-openstreetmap-org-13956033d0c9. And John Firebaugh's talk at OSM US 2014 is a great perspective on Mapbox's approach (and what it takes to do software development in OSM) https://2014.stateofthemap.us/session/implementing-change-in-openstreetmap/ Mapbox continued to support the development of iD with developer time, but not with a posture of setting direction as a company. The desire for Mapbox was and continues to be that iD continues to serve its purpose to provide a great mapping experience in OSM. So Mapbox never "owned" iD, and it's unclear if you can assign that concept. If you had to say who owns it, then it is OpenStreetMap, and that yes OSMF has the responsibility to make sure it has a healthy development and community environment. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 12:06:21 PM EDT, wrote: On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote: > Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody > working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox > received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to start > growing the company to its current size, so while we are obviously > thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the years, it was > clearly a win-win situation. Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care about them)? The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and ownership of the project are not the same thing. > Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a > million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in > any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, > doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to > be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if we really, really want it. From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies are all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that the maintainers are doing their job. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Am 09.06.2020 um 18:04 schrieb nd...@redhazel.co.uk: > > Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the > original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been > transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? > Does Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if > they don't currently care about them)? I don't think that is a particularly relevant question, but at least the non-forked code base currently is at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD > > The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of > starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and > ownership of the project are not the same thing. iD doesn't require any rights assignment to have contributions accepted, so again I'm not sure that that is a meaningful question. The IP rights in the code are owned by individuals contributing, and given that the major part of the code was work for hire*, by the companies employing them. But this would only be relevant in the case of re-licensing in any form. > >> Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a >> million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in >> any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, >> doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to >> be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. > > Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at > least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if > we really, really want it. As Frederik pointed out, without the OSMF agreeing to distribute the code and host it on openstreetmap.org the project would have been a non-starter. Your whole concept that this is something that developed independently and now there is now a grab by the OSMF to control it is completely at odds with reality, most of the issues are actually due to the OSMF -not- exercising its power in the past which is what this initiative is trying to address. > > From my point of view - I am happy with the current project > governance. It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. > Controversies are all around minor issues and contributions - > basically saying that the maintainers are doing their job. > Many people will disagree with that. Simon * "naturally", well it is one of the issues, the OSMF doesn't have any direct knowledge of the terms of employment of the relevant individuals, so this is a bit of speculation. > Ndrw > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 09/06/2020 16:00, Simon Poole wrote: Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to start growing the company to its current size, so while we are obviously thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the years, it was clearly a win-win situation. Who owns the iD project now? What's happened after "nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox", has the project ownership been transferred from Mapbox to OSMF, or perhaps to current maintainers? Does Mapbox still retain the ownership rights to the project (even if they don't currently care about them)? The code license is very permissive so there is always an option of starting a new project based on it (forking). But the license and ownership of the project are not the same thing. Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. Not saying that this shouldn't be the case, but clearly it wasn't, at least initially. And if it isn't ours we can't simply take it, even if we really, really want it. From my point of view - I am happy with the current project governance. It works well for iD, it works well for the OSM community. Controversies are all around minor issues and contributions - basically saying that the maintainers are doing their job. Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Am 09.06.2020 um 14:18 schrieb Mikel Maron: > --- > > As it should be. Mapbox developers decide on (not just have input on) budgets, product specs etc etc etc etc etc etc for the company? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Frederik has already corrected most of your misconceptions, so just some additional comments; Am 09.06.2020 um 12:32 schrieb nd...@redhazel.co.uk: > > - Taking control from the original authors would slow down, if not > stall, the development of iD. > Nearly all of the original authors left Mapbox a long time ago, nobody working on it today is an "original author". The grant that Mapbox received at the time was clearly instrumental in allowing them to start growing the company to its current size, so while we are obviously thankful for the support that Mapbox has provided over the years, it was clearly a win-win situation. Many would have argued that the OSMF should have received the half a million dollars and contracted the work out, maybe to Mapbox, but in any case just because what actually happened was slightly different, doesn't mean that the OSMF and the OSM community gave whoever happens to be working on iD the licence to control the projects destiny forever. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Hey I have some other things to say on this thread, but quickly this point is based on incorrect assumptions > 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? False dichotomy. The choice here is not between Silicon Valley and OSMF. Decisions on iD are not made by US tech firms. I say this as an employee of one of those firms who has observed this first hand. The decisions on iD are made by the developers, working within the OSM community. As it should be. What’s needed is the availability of more structure to come to software decision in those rare situations when ad hoc community is not enough. Yes iD is the focus currently, but it’s not the only place our community needs more software support. Mikel On Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 7:55 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 2020-06-09 12:32, nd...@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 successful. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Hi, On 2020-06-09 12:32, nd...@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 successful. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Jun 9, 2020, 12:32 by nd...@redhazel.co.uk: > On 09/06/2020 09:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> On 6/9/20 02:53, nd...@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? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Jun 9, 2020, 11:08 by saba...@gmail.com: > > > Il giorno mar 9 giu 2020 alle ore 10:06 Frederik Ramm <> frede...@remote.org> > > ha scritto: > >> >> We are having this discussion because the assumption that if someone is >> a good programmer they will also be good with gauging the will of the >> OSM community has proven wrong; iD is a good editor but the iD team has >> too often treated the community with contempt (to the point of openly >> violating the code of conduct that the iD team had given themselves) and >> ignored valid concerns. The relationship hence cannot continue on trust >> alone. >> >> > IIRC developers tried to approach the tagging list in the past > but since the tagging process is broken they were expecting the community to > fix this. > What's the outcome of the discussion we had in Heidelberg? > > What if we, as a community, can give clear instructions on tagging > and letting developers follow the documentation > instead of regulating software development? > It works well in case of JOSM. In case of iD there were multiple cases of rejecting, ignoring and making fun of such documentation (see for example case of misleading description for highway=track) (1) iD developers tried to redefine highway=track without consensus: "Roads for agricultural and forestry use etc." to "Infrequently maintained minor roads for agricultural and forestry use etc." https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dtrack=revision=1183581=1164441 This edit was reverted (2) iD developers are deliberately pushing this incorrect definition in their editor. See discussions in https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/commit/6b2a69282e0b274c270f5288765ca3db1c8890f9#commitcomment-16561761 https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/3038 https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6954 In particular https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/3038#issuecomment-197447828 confirms that it is a deliberate attempt to force their own definition of what highway=track should represent https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6954#issuecomment-544415061 suggest incorrect mapping for the renderer as a "solution" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
On 09/06/2020 09:01, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 6/9/20 02:53, nd...@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, and to add insult to injury you are asking the author to keep working on it by committing patches he disagrees with. I see several problems with it: - 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? - Taking control from the original authors would slow down, if not stall, the development of iD. - Giving the control to a committee would steer the development in a different direction (as in: "different from the current, good direction"). At very least it would give an excuse for rejected ideas to be pushed again. Frankly, I would rather have iD hosted elsewhere and being developed further to the benefit of a broader OSM community. 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? Bye Ndrw ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
You are invited to organize a panel about that during SotM. We are just creating space for panels, workshops and other free sessions: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_of_the_Map_2020/self-organized_sessions_howto Am 08.06.20 um 22:41 schrieb Dorothea Kazazi: > Hi all, > > 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/ > > Feel free to comment by replying to this email. > > Thank you and stay safe. > > warm greetings, > Dorothea > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Il giorno mar 9 giu 2020 alle ore 10:06 Frederik Ramm ha scritto: > > We are having this discussion because the assumption that if someone is > a good programmer they will also be good with gauging the will of the > OSM community has proven wrong; iD is a good editor but the iD team has > too often treated the community with contempt (to the point of openly > violating the code of conduct that the iD team had given themselves) and > ignored valid concerns. The relationship hence cannot continue on trust > alone. > > IIRC developers tried to approach the tagging list in the past but since the tagging process is broken they were expecting the community to fix this. What's the outcome of the discussion we had in Heidelberg? What if we, as a community, can give clear instructions on tagging and letting developers follow the documentation instead of regulating software development? The concerns are moved usually by a part of the community, not the whole of it unless there's a clear consensus. > Bye > Frederik > > Ciao, Stefano > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Hi, On 6/9/20 02:53, nd...@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?) It is obvious that this comes with responsibilities. To pick an extreme example just for the sake of argument, if iD were to display an advertising banner to generate revenue, or transmit the activities of OSM mappers to another web site for harvesting, that would force us to drop iD from our web page immediately, and with that, the iD project or at least the part that deals with OSM would vanish into oblivion. So there is a contract here: The iD team makes a good editor, and the OSMF defines the decision making envelope for the iD team - some things they can just do to their liking because they don't affect the "iD is the official OSM(F) default editor" status, but other decisions they might want to make are outside this envelope and OSM needs to be given a say. That is not meddling with their affairs or "crippling down a good tool", it is just a necessary sharing of responsibilities. > 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). We are having this discussion because the assumption that if someone is a good programmer they will also be good with gauging the will of the OSM community has proven wrong; iD is a good editor but the iD team has too often treated the community with contempt (to the point of openly violating the code of conduct that the iD team had given themselves) and ignored valid concerns. The relationship hence cannot continue on trust alone. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
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
[OSM-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD
Hi all, 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/ Feel free to comment by replying to this email. Thank you and stay safe. warm greetings, Dorothea ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
