Hi Martijn, I was thinking of disclosed sources that can’t easily be shown, for example, imagery that doesn’t exist yet, or where you have to enter a special agreement to be given access, or out-of-copyright analogue sources that haven’t been digitised.
We agree that this should be exceptional, and I expect the communities to have a low tolerance for bullshit on this :). Guillaume > On 17 Jan 2019, at 17:57, Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> talk mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
