Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 from the proposal: In appointing members of the Panel, the Board shall strive for Panel composition (membership) that reflects [...] Seems there are some eddies in the fabric of spacetime... <>___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 some eddies in the fabric of spacetime... -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 specific formula, but think we should expand this section to touch on the kinds of things we would hope to see in the composition of the board. That certainly would be experience and expertise with OSM community and software development and mapping. I don’t think anyone is impartial on anything but we’d want people who are recognized as open minded. We haven’t talked at all about transparency of selection and deliberations. I’m not sure it’s wise to be completely open in the work of disputes, but certainly having deliberations well minutes and explained makes sense. Mikel On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:42 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: 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 believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely. Mikel On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: 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 no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals. If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community. As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." – Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron wrote: 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 decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of corporate employees? What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: >> >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software >> dispute resolution panel: >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >> te-resolution-panel/ > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > does not control itself... > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > themselves. See also: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > data users. > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > on cases
Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely. Mikel On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: 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 no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals. If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community. As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." – Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron wrote: 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 decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of corporate employees? What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: >> >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software >> dispute resolution panel: >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >> te-resolution-panel/ > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > does not control itself... > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > themselves. See also: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > data users. > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. > ___ 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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals. If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community. As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." – Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron wrote: > 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 < > r...@technomancy.org> wrote: > > > > > > The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be > formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't > address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will > happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of > corporate employees? > > What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? > > On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: > >> > >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software > >> dispute resolution panel: > >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu > >> te-resolution-panel/ > > > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > > does not control itself... > > > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > > themselves. See also: > > > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > > data users. > > > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > > on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. > > > > ___ > 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] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 them, and only large corporations will be able to hire enough people to parse & handle it all. * it should be relatively simple for the community to add new types, and later to converge on how to map that new type, thus becoming a new "standard". * multiple editors should encourage users to map the same types of features in the same way. So yes, conformity is good because it allows us (consumers) to make sense of the data without having an army of developers. Hope I'm making sense here, and stating the obvious. Captain out. :) On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mikel Maron wrote: > 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 < > r...@technomancy.org> wrote: > > > > > > The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be > formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't > address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will > happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of > corporate employees? > > What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? > > On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: > >> > >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software > >> dispute resolution panel: > >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu > >> te-resolution-panel/ > > > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > > does not control itself... > > > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > > themselves. See also: > > > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > > data users. > > > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > > on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. > > > > ___ > 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] Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel
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 decided on how the panel will be formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of corporate employees? What would you suggest for appointing & transparency? On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote: >> >> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software >> dispute resolution panel: >> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu >> te-resolution-panel/ > > I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it > does not control itself... > > For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected > entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in > composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members > themselves. See also: > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy > > Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from > the fact that it is not composed of political appointees. > > Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to > reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the > panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping > and tagging in OSM or in other words: The competence to assess > evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters > in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion. Neither is > impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate > data users. > > Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public > (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function > otherwise). I guess that means both the nominations and selection of > panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel > on cases is going to happen behind closed doors. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
