2016-07-12 14:35 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > > On 07/12/2016 03:03 AM, tuxayo wrote: > > The questions is how legitimate are they. To know if we can enforce them > > strictly. > > Enforcing anything "strictly" is likely to cause problems. Rules can > only be enforced strictly if they are so well written that any idiot can > enforce them by simply following the instructions ;) >
The DWG currently use those (AE CoC) rules to revert changesets without further justification. For example, a few years ago we had a user called "worst-fixer" or so > who did a couple of large-scale edits removing the "created-by" tag. Now > this was a mechanical edit against the rules, and there was a consensus > in the community to remove those unwanted tags piecemeal instead of > creating a new version for hundreds of thousands of objects, needlessly. > > Strictly enforcing rules would have meant reverting all these edits but > that would have been quite silly (causing another extra version to be > created), so they were allowed to stand. > It's a good thing that rules could be bent a little, but that means that they should be modified. Defining rules but overriding them when convenient is not a sane approach in the long term. > > That would also allow DWG members to intervene with a greater legitimacy > > because it would not come from their status. > > Having a DWG whose legitimacy comes from rules would allow everyone to > start endless discussions about DWG's interpretation of the rules, or > finding loopholes in the wording. This is what happens in Wikipedia and > it allows troublemakers to waste an awful lot of volunteer time by > posing as innocent, rule-abiding people. > Do you suggest that DWG members should not even base their actions on rules accepted by the community ? That wouldn't work even with perfectly honest, calm, and open-minded members, as even then contributors could have have another valid opinion on things. (just to be clear : I am not saying that they are not calm, honest and open-minded) > > I agree that showing them at sign up wouldn't help. However it's to be > > expected that first time mass edits are done without knowing the AECoC > > as nothing more than the JOSM search and replace tool is needed. Is not > > like importing which require more documentation. > > Perhaps we could make JOSM cleverer in detecting such cases and alerting > people to the rules. JOSM already pops up tons of warnings - about > moving lots of nodes, about displaced aerial imagery, etc. - it could > also say "you're changing a lot of objects over a geographically large > area at the same time and you haven't zoomed in on any, are you sure you > have read the rules..." > That is a good idea ! > > > The reporting of AECoC violations could be done in a dedicated open > > mailing list so we could have accountability about how these issues are > > handled. > > *Any thoughts about this? This is a concrete proposal.* > > DWG is happy about every case that the community manages to handle > between themselves, without DWG having to get involved. If such a > mailing list would help taking some of the load off DWG's shoulders and > DWG would then only deal with those cases that the community can't > handle or where things aren't clear enough, sure that would be great. > So at least one user should reach out to the contributor before involving the DWG ? That would be great but that's not currently the case in my experience. > The rules about automated edits stem from their ability to upset many > people in the community. Reverting an automated edit will usually only > upset one person. At least some reversal were done after only one complaint, so it doesn't currently work like that. > It is a logical fallacy to believe that just because > automated edits are a problem that needs to be regulated, the reverting > of automated edits needs to be regulated as well. Why not ? All changesets should be justifiable, even so on a revert where there are no verification at all of the modified data, whereas in "automated" edits there are at least some.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
