Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-05 Thread Rory McCann
I meant, that the board hasn't decided how the board will vote/appoint/choose the members of this panel. On 05/08/2020 01:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Rory McCann wrote: The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Quoting

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-04 Thread Christoph Hormann
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Rory McCann wrote: > The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be > formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Quoting from the proposal: > In appointing members of the Panel, the Board shall strive for Panel composition (membership) that reflects [...] Seems there are

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-04 Thread Mikel Maron
More seriously the line “all interests of the OSM community” was one we talked a lot about on the board when writing this message, and had several versions, and indeed we touched on how to best designate what was needed in composition of the panel. I think it’s not possible to put together a

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-04 Thread Mikel Maron
It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion we’ve had on the board. And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter. I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-04 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?" This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns. While we hope that

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-04 Thread Yuri Astrakhan
Mikel, I might be misunderstanding what you meant, but in my opinion conformity is required for this type of project, and I do hope iD/JOSM/... help us achieve that. To clarify: * features with the same meaning (type) should be mapped the same way, otherwise each consumer must understand all of

Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

2020-08-04 Thread Mikel Maron
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this? On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann wrote: The Board hasn't