Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Martin, thank you. As mentioned, I am working on that internal deadline. The draft is currently under review. How was your Saturday morning? Mine was writing and reviewing these drafts on Crimea and other topics. I warmly remind you that consensus building does take time. We are very much making every effort to meet the need. Heather Heather Leson heatherle...@gmail.com Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson Blog: textontechs.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:18 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Mo., 28. Jan. 2019 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson < > heat...@osmfoundation.org>: > >> Dear Martin and Colleagues, >> >> Since December, the Board has attempted to draft a public response. We >> are still discussing. I provided an update in the board meeting of January >> 17, 2019 - https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2019-01-17 >> >> Since that time, I have tried again to get agreement from the Board on >> the full details. We have a new board and there is much discussion about >> the text. >> >> I will try again tomorrow night to rewrite it and ask for permission to >> share from the Board. Also, a quick note about the comments in Weekly OSM. >> I am obliged to issue statements on discussions when the Board agrees to >> the content of the statements. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Heather >> > > > Dear Heather, dear Board, > > thank you for the update. I understand you are all volunteers and there > are also other pressing issues at the moment. Still it is now a lot of time > that has passed since Nov. 17 / Dec. 10, 2018, and we are in a kind of > limbo, because the board, in apparent conflict with its own > disputed-territories policy [1], reversed the Data Working Group decision > just a few days before the 2018 board elections, but so far did not provide > any kind of explanation or new policy to replace the former one. > > While it already felt quite strange on Dec. 10 that you just proclaimed > the annulation of the well-founded DWG decision without providing any kind > of explanations or motivations, it is now alarming that there are still no > explanations. While we do not have many general rules with regard to > mapping, the on-the-ground rule was certainly for many years the guiding > principle and foundation of every "OpenStreetMapping", and assured us peace > in problem areas, so deviating from it would seem such a major change of > direction, that I could not believe my eyes when I read it and no > explanation was provided along. > > Frankly, the way it was done, just before the upcoming elections of a new > board, and without actually bringing it to an end, would probably be > considered terrible political style, in the regions I am familiar with. > > My suggestion to the board would be to set yourself a deadline, until > which you will try to reach consensus within the new Board, and if you > cannot come to a common statement which supports the decision of the old > Board, you should reenact the DWG decision so we can get back to normal > operations. > > > Cheers, > Martin > > > > > [1] > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Am Mo., 28. Jan. 2019 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson < heat...@osmfoundation.org>: > Dear Martin and Colleagues, > > Since December, the Board has attempted to draft a public response. We are > still discussing. I provided an update in the board meeting of January 17, > 2019 - https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2019-01-17 > > Since that time, I have tried again to get agreement from the Board on the > full details. We have a new board and there is much discussion about the > text. > > I will try again tomorrow night to rewrite it and ask for permission to > share from the Board. Also, a quick note about the comments in Weekly OSM. > I am obliged to issue statements on discussions when the Board agrees to > the content of the statements. > > Thank you, > > Heather > Dear Heather, dear Board, thank you for the update. I understand you are all volunteers and there are also other pressing issues at the moment. Still it is now a lot of time that has passed since Nov. 17 / Dec. 10, 2018, and we are in a kind of limbo, because the board, in apparent conflict with its own disputed-territories policy [1], reversed the Data Working Group decision just a few days before the 2018 board elections, but so far did not provide any kind of explanation or new policy to replace the former one. While it already felt quite strange on Dec. 10 that you just proclaimed the annulation of the well-founded DWG decision without providing any kind of explanations or motivations, it is now alarming that there are still no explanations. While we do not have many general rules with regard to mapping, the on-the-ground rule was certainly for many years the guiding principle and foundation of every "OpenStreetMapping", and assured us peace in problem areas, so deviating from it would seem such a major change of direction, that I could not believe my eyes when I read it and no explanation was provided along. Frankly, the way it was done, just before the upcoming elections of a new board, and without actually bringing it to an end, would probably be considered terrible political style, in the regions I am familiar with. My suggestion to the board would be to set yourself a deadline, until which you will try to reach consensus within the new Board, and if you cannot come to a common statement which supports the decision of the old Board, you should reenact the DWG decision so we can get back to normal operations. Cheers, Martin [1] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Am Mo., 7. Jan. 2019 um 21:23 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson < heat...@osmfoundation.org>: > Hi Andrew, thank you for your note. The OSMF Board was offline for the > holiday season. We will be conferring on this topic and respond within the > week. > > Thank you for your understanding > > Heather > Hi Heather and board, would you mind giving us a short notice about the state of things? Are you working on a new guideline to replace the on-the-ground rule? Do you know when the explanations can be provided that you promised on Dec. 12? Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Will the board be following up with additional information as promised? -- Andrew From: Martijn van Exel Sent: 10 December 2018 16:55:42 To: OSM Talk; OSMF Talk Cc: OSMF Board Subject: [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint Hi all, On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea. The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect. The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis. A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks. Best regards, Martijn van Exel Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
"When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there." source: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map - no further comment - ## Manfred Reiter - mobile - ## please excuse typos and brevity Am Mo., 10. Dez. 2018, 11:58 hat Martijn van Exel geschrieben: > Hi all, > > On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review > the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea. > > The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous > situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to > further remain in effect. > > The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the > difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an > ongoing basis. > > A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks. > > Best regards, > Martijn van Exel > Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation > ___ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Yeah it will be interesting to see what the board has to say about this in more detail. I think on the whole I'm glad the decision has gone this way. In my mind the case of Crimea has hung in the balance with very strong arguments in favour of both approaches. I have great respect for the way DWG have handled things. Basically it seems they treated Crimea "with kid gloves" (as Stereo puts it) for a few years, and more recently tried to transition towards better alignment with our policies. So (as with other crap they have to deal with) it's a shame they've born the brunt of various attacks about this. I would hope the board's decision is not, and should not be interpreted as, a rebuking of DWG, but rather it desire to work with DWG to reanalyse this and make adjustments to our policy to better match this kind of scenario. No need to be up-in-arms about anything here. ...but I'm putting words in other people's mouths. Let's wait and see what the board has to say (and yeah give them some time. We're all volunteers) Harry Wood On Monday, 10 December 2018, 18:12:44 GMT, Manfred A. Reiter wrote: "When in doubt, also consider the "on the ground rule": map the world as it can be observed by someone physically there." source: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map - no further comment - ## Manfred Reiter - mobile - ## please excuse typos and brevity Am Mo., 10. Dez. 2018, 11:58 hat Martijn van Exel geschrieben: Hi all, On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea. The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect. The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis. A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks. Best regards, Martijn van Exel Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
On 2018-12-11 11:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote: A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support normal levels of Board transparency on this issue? Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be deciding something not in their favour. Is transparancy meant as in personal accountability or transparancy as in clarity how the process works? I hope it is the latter and that noone suggests that people be individually named and/or identified so they can "stand trial for their actions". IMHO that would not be a normal level of transparency. Regards, Maarten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Hi Frederik, Can there be a transparency on death treats too? On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:42 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote: > > A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support > > normal levels of Board transparency on this issue? > > Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there > who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be > deciding something not in their favour. > > I'm not saying that this should automatically top any transparency > requirements, and there hasn't been a board decision to limit > transparency about this, but when discussing transparency in matters > like this you have to take into account that transparency *can* > occasionally mean that bullying becomes easier, and that people who > would otherwise have voted yes or no suddenly vote abstain just to keep > out of trouble. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > osmf-talk mailing list > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk > -- Darafei Praliaskouski Support me: http://patreon.com/komzpa ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
Hi, On 11.12.2018 11:16, Andrew Hain wrote: > A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support > normal levels of Board transparency on this issue? Just as a "data point" in this discussion: There are people out there who are happy to issue death threats to anyone who is seen to be deciding something not in their favour. I'm not saying that this should automatically top any transparency requirements, and there hasn't been a board decision to limit transparency about this, but when discussing transparency in matters like this you have to take into account that transparency *can* occasionally mean that bullying becomes easier, and that people who would otherwise have voted yes or no suddenly vote abstain just to keep out of trouble. 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] [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
A question both to the current board and the candidates: Do you support normal levels of Board transparency on this issue? -- Andrew From: Martijn van Exel Sent: 10 December 2018 16:55:42 To: OSM Talk; OSMF Talk Cc: OSMF Board Subject: [Osmf-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint Hi all, On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea. The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect. The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis. A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks. Best regards, Martijn van Exel Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation ___ osmf-talk mailing list osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
