Hi Guillaume, Thanks, that clarifies it for me. Just to be clear, where you mention 'special sources' -- those would still need to be vetted for compatibility with ODbL, and that would need to be done in the open. I don't think anyone, individual or organization, should be able to get away with using some undisclosed source even if the community somehow is willing to accept this and turn a blind eye. Am I misunderstanding that example? -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, at 09:51, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > Hi Martijn, > > Gladly. I seem to recall that this is also one of the points that you > asked questions about during the board meeting. > > What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has issues > with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following the > guidelines. Maybe a few examples will help. > > If you organise a mapping activity and miss a topic when adapting one > of the wiki template, and the local community has no issue with > anything, no one is in trouble. > > If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community > understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble. > > If you ignore a part of the guidelines and the community complains > about that but agrees that the actual edits are excellent, we’ll kindly > ask you to try to follow that part, but that’s probably it. For > example, if you’re responding to a humanitarian emergency and don’t > wait for 14 days. > > If there’s no wiki entry at all for an activity and the community > complains about the edits, DWG would look into it. > > If the community is unhappy with some of the information it has > received, and objects to the edits being made, and you ignore the > objections, and the community complains, DWG would look into it. > > If you do everything by the book, but the local community is unhappy > about the edits themselves and complains about it, DWG would look into > it. But that’s very unlikely if you really did follow the guidelines. > > So the community truly has an effect on what DWG looks at. The > guidelines are the best way we know to have a constructive relationship > with the community, and a rich discussion is the most important part of > it. > > Of course, following the guidelines also demonstrates good faith if the > DWG needs to look into the edits. > > I hope this clarifies the intentions. > > Happy mapping > > Guillaume > > > On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:37, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Guillaume, DWG, > > > > Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to > > post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we > > can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. > > > > I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing > > guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with > > what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to > > enforce [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from > > community consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could > > you add some clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when > > non-compliance becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an > > offense, or how many, would it take to be banned? > > > > Martijn > > > > [1] > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements > > > > -- > > Martijn van Exel > > m...@rtijn.org > > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: > >> The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised > >> Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines > >> > >> I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my > >> updated report. > >> > >> We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we > >> have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping > >> initiatives and the mapping community. > >> > >> The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We > >> received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and > >> existing good practice. > >> > >> We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other > >> organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, > >> has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally > >> understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We > >> wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting > >> a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing > >> guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous > >> policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite > >> different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. > >> > >> Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully > >> wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems > >> without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging > >> salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities > >> like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at > >> a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted > >> something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us > >> regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer > >> mapathon. > >> > >> We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have > >> to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what > >> falls under the guidelines. > >> > >> Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore > >> adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a > >> best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the > >> two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been > >> problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket > >> exemption would send the wrong signal. > >> > >> We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the > >> community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to > >> us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the > >> wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear > >> expectations. The community will be confident that this is the > >> consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a > >> blueprint for a successful organised edit. > >> > >> We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide > >> clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a > >> chilling effect on them. > >> > >> I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it > >> will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. > >> > >> Guillaume > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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
