Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Peter Wendorff]

Am 05.02.2013 08:15, schrieb Clifford Snow:
Third parties bring unique value to OSM. However, is 
it inconceivable that  we might be able to offer something more than 
just a database?



For example funded Software development has been done by companies
like
CloudMade, MapQuest on a company budget, or Mapbox that applied
for external
funding through the Knight foundation to develop OpenStreetMap
software like
e.g. the iD editor.

This is great until these companies decide that they want us to map 
according to their rules.  If they are building the tools then we have 
lost the ability to set our directions. Now from what I've seen of the 
iD editor it's great. The point I'm trying to stress is that we should 
set our own path, not let others set it for us. We could still 
encourage others to build tools, but with the understanding of where 
we are headed.
But who is "we" here? Who should decide how to "set our own path"? All 
registered mappers? The OSMF board? Registered users? Active Mappers? 
What are active mappers? Coders? Active coders? Wiki editors? Every of 
any of the mentioned groups who is able to read, speak AND write English 
language?
Whatever you choose as a "definition" for "we" here, it's very likely 
that it's not better than what we have now: Everybody who want's to 
decide AND DO.
Sure: that may be companies, and yes, it may have a bad taste that 
companies influence how stuff is done in the "osm universe", but on the 
other hand you could say the same about the JOSM or Potlatch 
maintainers, who influence mapping practice a lot by deciding about 
tagging templates and the like.
I think it's good that everyone, even a company, is able to use osm data 
as well as to provide their users means to contribute back - by 
providing "open-in-osm-editor"-links as well as by implementing their 
own editing functionality (as long as it's done right).


If you want "us" to "set our own path", I have to ask, what differs a 
"better" "us" from the people currently setting up our path - many 
volunteers coding JOSM, Potlatch and iD (even sponsored by Mapbox/Knight 
Foundation as far as I know the iD dev people talk to and receive 
contributions by non-paid volunteers).


regards
Peter
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Kai Krueger  wrote:

> Well, what does strategic planning even mean in the context of OSMF?
>
> OSMF currently operates under the strategy of keeping its influence pretty
> much as minimal as somehow possible. It mostly limits it self to operating
> the servers for the editing api and publishing a weekly planet dump.
> Everything else is kind of outside of the scope of the OSMF and to be
> provided by third parties. This strategy is implemented to such a degree
> that e.g. not even planet extracts to make the unwieldy monolithic planet
> file usable  are provided by OSMF but by third parties. It operates under
> the strategy that anything that can conceivably be provided by third
> parties
> should.
>

Third parties bring unique value to OSM. However, is it inconceivable that
 we might be able to offer something more than just a database?

>
> For example funded Software development has been done by companies like
> CloudMade, MapQuest on a company budget, or Mapbox that applied for
> external
> funding through the Knight foundation to develop OpenStreetMap software
> like
> e.g. the iD editor.
>

This is great until these companies decide that they want us to map
according to their rules.  If they are building the tools then we have lost
the ability to set our directions. Now from what I've seen of the iD editor
it's great. The point I'm trying to stress is that we should set our own
path, not let others set it for us. We could still encourage others to
build tools, but with the understanding of where we are headed.

>
>
> PR resources have been provided to the community by yet more third party
> sources, like e.g. some of the offers of Geofabrik to print PR materials to
> use in various ways like e.g. to man booths on trade shows.
>

Yet Google gets the press that thanks to them, North Korea has now been
mapped. In an ideal world, the local community should be the lead
communicator. But having a PR staff for OSM is just smart. Good press is
going to help us raise money for new servers and other infrastructure we'll
need. Lacking a local mapping community a PR staff could be the catalyst
for the creation of new mapping communities.

>
>
> So again the strategy of OSMF has been to not "pick winners or loosers" to
> use a political term but let the community a free hand in anything that
> isn't absolutely necessary to centralize, which covers the servers
> necessary
> for the editing API, protecting the core data in the database and legal
> issues like the license, copy right violations and trandemark issues).
>
> Personally I am not the biggest fan of this rather libertarian approach,
> but
> it is a perfectly valid strategy for OSMF to take and which approach would
> ultimately lead to more success for OSM is pretty much impossible to
> factually determine and is thus left to personal opinion and controversial
> political debate.
>

It is a valid strategy, but is it the right strategy?

>
> Under this premises what would strategic planning for the OSMF look like?
> Well, it would pretty much be an extremely technical discussion about the
> scalability of the server hardware. Although that might be a fascinating
> topic for some, I doubt that is what is meant by strategic planning in this
> debate and I don't really see any issues with that at the moment.
>

God I hope not.  You build a strategy based on what you want the future to
look like. Hardware is not the issue. Getting people to come together to
build the vision of what we want OpenStreetMap to look like is far more
important than how big a server we've got. Or how fat our pipe is.

>
> In that light, one can also see the success and failure of the previous
> attempts of the SWG. As Richard pointed out, one of the "successes" of the
> SWG was to establish a policy of inclusion of third party tiles in the
> layer
> chooser. Although I think it was an important achievement, and as a member
> of the SWG at the time helped formulate it, I wouldn't directly call that
> "strategic planning". Most other topics successfully handled were also
> pretty "short sighted" technical aspects if I remember correctly. But that
> is at least partly because there simply isn't any scope for strategic
> planning in the current model of the OSMF.
>

I agree.

>
> So anyone who wants to do any "strategic planning" must first of all
> massively expand the resources, scope and responsibilities of OSMF.
> However,
> given that OSMF already even with its extremely limited scope of
> responsibilities suffers under a massive trust issues where far too many
> active members of the OSM community seem to find a huge conspiracy theory
> in
> each action OSMF takes, I don't see how a big expansion of responsibilities
> of the OSMF would be accepted by the community without hugely costly and
> probably damaging political fights.
>

Again I agree. The C & D order is a good example. I fully support their
decision. I'm sure most of us would have come to 

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Bryce Cogswell]

Indeed. I suppose if one joins a project on the assumption that there is no 
direction and no goals, at least you'll never be disappointed in how it turns 
out.

On Feb 4, 2013, at 10:26 PM, Jeff Meyer  wrote:

> Noted. 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Robin Paulson  wrote:
> On 2013-02-04 07:35, Jeff Meyer wrote:
> To answer your first question, I do. Others have voiced the same
> 
> you're making a decision not to have a decision any more (leading implies 
> someone making decisions on your behalf)? that's rather contradictory
> 
> opinion - theyd like to see some organization, to know that their
> 
> efforts are being applied for the most benefit. Your voice is noted,
> but there should be room for disagreement, no? 
> 
> not if it affects me, or anyone else who doesn't want to be affected, no. 
> there is the faint whiff of top-down organisation happening here, which is 
> very concerning. i didn't take part in osm in order for someone to organise 
> me.
> 
> One of the goals of a strategic exercise would be to test your thesis
> whether OSMs (and the OSMFs) "damn good job so far," is "damn good"
> 
> enough to continue to survive and thrive. The thesis that an
> organizing board reduces a community of thousands to the views of a
> handful seems contrary to what has gone on with many other successful
> OS projects.
> 
> considering the problems with representative democracy in the last 300 years, 
> and how the "representatives" are rarely representative of the many, i'm not 
> sure this is possible:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/23/congress-us-politics
> 
> i recall that 80+% of british MPs are millionaires, while ~0.1% of their 
> constituents are. out of touch?
> 
> if someone is not being represented, then by definition we won't hear from 
> them, so we won't know if there are any problems, such as poor 
> representation. so whether the other successful OS projects are representing 
> everyone or not is difficult to judge
> 
> 
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Robin Paulson  [4]> wrote:
> 
> On 2013-02-03 07:41, Jeff Meyer wrote:
> 
> was: geocoding trademark thread
> 
> I think Paweł has hit on a key question: does the OSMF have
> plans to
> operate and lead OSM in a more efficient, organized manner or
> not?
> 
> what makes you think anyone wants to be lead, i certainly dont? or
> wants to be organised from above? were all fully functional human
> 
> beings, perfectly capable of organising ourselves, and doing a damn
> good job so far - look at where OSM and most other digital commons
> projects have got through self-organising.
> 
> i disagree with any idea of a board, i think its utterly wrong, it
> 
> reduces a community of thousands to the views a handful of people
> can put across.
> 
> 
> -- 
> robin
> 
> http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Meyer
> Global World History Atlas
> www.gwhat.org
> j...@gwhat.org
> 206-676-2347
>  osm: Historical OSM / my OSM user page
>  t: @GWHAThistory
>  f: GWHAThistory
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Jeff Meyer]

Noted.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Robin Paulson  wrote:

> On 2013-02-04 07:35, Jeff Meyer wrote:
>
>> To answer your first question, I do. Others have voiced the same
>>
>
> you're making a decision not to have a decision any more (leading implies
> someone making decisions on your behalf)? that's rather contradictory
>
>  opinion - theyd like to see some organization, to know that their
>>
>> efforts are being applied for the most benefit. Your voice is noted,
>> but there should be room for disagreement, no?
>>
>
> not if it affects me, or anyone else who doesn't want to be affected, no.
> there is the faint whiff of top-down organisation happening here, which is
> very concerning. i didn't take part in osm in order for someone to organise
> me.
>
>  One of the goals of a strategic exercise would be to test your thesis
>> whether OSMs (and the OSMFs) "damn good job so far," is "damn good"
>>
>> enough to continue to survive and thrive. The thesis that an
>> organizing board reduces a community of thousands to the views of a
>> handful seems contrary to what has gone on with many other successful
>> OS projects.
>>
>
> considering the problems with representative democracy in the last 300
> years, and how the "representatives" are rarely representative of the many,
> i'm not sure this is possible:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/**commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/**
> nov/23/congress-us-politics
>
> i recall that 80+% of british MPs are millionaires, while ~0.1% of their
> constituents are. out of touch?
>
> if someone is not being represented, then by definition we won't hear from
> them, so we won't know if there are any problems, such as poor
> representation. so whether the other successful OS projects are
> representing everyone or not is difficult to judge
>
>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Robin Paulson > [4]> wrote:
>>
>>  On 2013-02-03 07:41, Jeff Meyer wrote:
>>>
>>>  was: geocoding trademark thread

 I think Paweł has hit on a key question: does the OSMF have
 plans to
 operate and lead OSM in a more efficient, organized manner or
 not?

>>>
>>> what makes you think anyone wants to be lead, i certainly dont? or
>>> wants to be organised from above? were all fully functional human
>>>
>>> beings, perfectly capable of organising ourselves, and doing a damn
>>> good job so far - look at where OSM and most other digital commons
>>> projects have got through self-organising.
>>>
>>> i disagree with any idea of a board, i think its utterly wrong, it
>>>
>>> reduces a community of thousands to the views a handful of people
>>> can put across.
>>>
>>>
> --
> robin
>
> http://**universitywithoutconditions.**ac.nz-
>  Auckland's Free University
>
> __**_
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Jeff Meyer
Global World History Atlas
www.gwhat.org
j...@gwhat.org
206-676-2347
 osm: Historical
OSM
 / my OSM user page 
 t: @GWHAThistory 
 f: GWHAThistory 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Robin Paulson]

On 2013-02-04 07:35, Jeff Meyer wrote:

To answer your first question, I do. Others have voiced the same


you're making a decision not to have a decision any more (leading 
implies someone making decisions on your behalf)? that's rather 
contradictory



opinion - theyd like to see some organization, to know that their
efforts are being applied for the most benefit. Your voice is noted,
but there should be room for disagreement, no? 


not if it affects me, or anyone else who doesn't want to be affected, 
no. there is the faint whiff of top-down organisation happening here, 
which is very concerning. i didn't take part in osm in order for someone 
to organise me.



One of the goals of a strategic exercise would be to test your thesis
whether OSMs (and the OSMFs) "damn good job so far," is "damn good"
enough to continue to survive and thrive. The thesis that an
organizing board reduces a community of thousands to the views of a
handful seems contrary to what has gone on with many other successful
OS projects.


considering the problems with representative democracy in the last 300 
years, and how the "representatives" are rarely representative of the 
many, i'm not sure this is possible:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/nov/23/congress-us-politics

i recall that 80+% of british MPs are millionaires, while ~0.1% of 
their constituents are. out of touch?


if someone is not being represented, then by definition we won't hear 
from them, so we won't know if there are any problems, such as poor 
representation. so whether the other successful OS projects are 
representing everyone or not is difficult to judge




On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Robin Paulson  wrote:


On 2013-02-03 07:41, Jeff Meyer wrote:


was: geocoding trademark thread

I think Paweł has hit on a key question: does the OSMF have
plans to
operate and lead OSM in a more efficient, organized manner or
not?


what makes you think anyone wants to be lead, i certainly dont? or
wants to be organised from above? were all fully functional human
beings, perfectly capable of organising ourselves, and doing a damn
good job so far - look at where OSM and most other digital commons
projects have got through self-organising.

i disagree with any idea of a board, i think its utterly wrong, it
reduces a community of thousands to the views a handful of people
can put across.



--
robin

http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Robin Paulson]

On 2013-02-05 06:56, Simon Poole wrote:
participated it has always struck me how little alignment of goals 
there
is in  the community as a whole (I'm not saying it is surprising, 
just

that is so). Outside the very generic mission that OSM  "creates and
distributes free geographic data for the world" it is difficult to 
find
common ground. So not only to we tend to disagree on how to get to 
our
goal (the strategy) there are a number of different views on what 
those

goals actually are (outside of hand wavy very generic statements).

The exercise towards the end of the SWG to define core values for the
project could be seen as an attempt to document some aspects of what
common ground there is, however it never matured (IMHO) to a level 
that
the result could be published as a formal document and currently 
molders

well hidden on the foundation web site at
ttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Core_Values

I'm fairly sure that prior to any strategic exercise we need to take 
a
step back and have a look at what this project wants to achieve in 
the end.


who is "we"? and why do you or anyone else get to declare what "we" 
need to do? isn't that a personal decision? you're right, those who map 
do have different aims, methods, approaches, understandings, etc. why 
does that need to change? and how are you or anyone else going to form 
those 30,000 into one? through what authority, through what power?


--
robin

http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Robin Paulson]

On 2013-02-04 07:02, Michal Migurski wrote:
which concerns me no end. what position of authority does simon 
hold? over whom?


Simon is the elected chairman of the OSMF board, and can speak on its
behalf. He holds a position of authority over the Geocode Inc. issue
because apparently the foundation received a C&D.


what significance does the osmf board hold? they speak for 
themselves, not anyone else.


That's exactly the question at hand in this particular argument.

We seem to have an OSMF that's not effective at communicating, and
large parts of the community don't see the value they offer. Your
takeaway is that the board is not representative of the project and
should not exist at all. My feeling is that a project needs a


no, my takeaway is that any time a small group attempts to represent a 
larger group, necessarily there will be problems, therefore we should 
not have a small group such as the board attempting to represent 30,000 
individuals who map



political structure to survive. In either case, Geocode Inc. believes


when you say "the project", you imply the people who contribute can be 
fashioned into a unity. i am fundamentally against that, it is flawed 
thinking. we are a multitude [1], not a singular, and thus we cannot be 
represented by anything less than ourselves.



that the OSMF are the right people to receive a C&D.

Ultimately, someone needs to own the domain name and the API and the
servers it runs on. That's who the Geocodes of the world are going to


well, if we assume that certain resources are best centralised, and 
thus controlled by a single entity. i don't, again that is flawed as it 
gives power and control to a few. if we move away from that, and there 
is no representation, no centralisation, who do geocde send the notice 
to, all 30,000 who map?



target. It would be best if that someone was answerable to the larger
community through a democratic process of some sort, so in my view 
the

OSMF is a requirement.

I'm not frustrated that we *have* a board, I'm frustrated that the
board we've got doesn't seem effective at communicating its purpose 
or

much of anything else. They're bad at politics. If they were good at
politics, you wouldn't be disagreeing with the idea of a board 
because

you'd be thankful for the provision of a quality API and the decisive
resolution of legal threats from trademark trolls.


yes i would still be disagreeing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude

--
robin

http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert ?

[Vincent Pottier]

Le 05/02/2013 00:43, nicholas ingalls a écrit :


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Vincent Pottier > wrote:


t it be reverted ?
Does somebody can do it ?


Can you provide a link or a changeset id?

Cheers,
ingalls


Oups ! Sorry !
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/10423011
Especialy
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39199782
that as been flatten.

Thanks
--
FrViPofm
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert ?

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

On 02/05/2013 12:43 AM, nicholas ingalls wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Vincent Pottier  > wrote:
>
> It seems there is a problem in this changeset.
> Must it be reverted ?
> Does somebody can do it ?
>
>
> Can you provide a link or a changeset id?
He will - after he catches up on obviously overdue sleep instead of
hacking on OSM...

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Revert ?

[nicholas ingalls]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Vincent Pottier  wrote:

> t it be reverted ?
> Does somebody can do it ?
>

Can you provide a link or a changeset id?

Cheers,
ingalls
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Revert ?

[Vincent Pottier]

Hi,
It seems there is a problem in this changeset.
Must it be reverted ?
Does somebody can do it ?
--
FrViPofm

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Takedown notices

[Paul Norman]

> From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Takedown notices
> 
> I doubt that it would be wise or legally possible to publish the full
> text of any takedown requests we have received, and if it is just for UK
> data protection regulations. I do think it would be a good idea to
> publish something along the lines of a "transparency" report on a
> quarterly or similar base, however (DWG pls correct me) I don't believe
> that outside of internal disputes there have been any noticeable number
> of takedown or similar requests from third parties over the life of the
> project to date so it is not going to make very interesting reading

We've had one valid DMCA takedown request, I think a couple of people asking
questions via the form, and plenty of automated spam. A report would be
pretty boring.

I can't see anything that prevents us from publishing a DMCA takedown
request - Google does this for their takedown requests - but this would
something for the LWG or another working group to consider. I expect we'd
want to blank out some of the contact information if we did publish. The
person who the complaint is about receives a full copy of the takedown
request and I know people routinely publish takedown requests they receive
for sites they run.

The DMCA process is very specific to copyright, but if it did cover
trademark claims then the allegedly infringing material would need to remain
removed until at least 10 business days after a counter-notice was received.
The soonest this date would be is February 15th.


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Simon Poole]

As a relative newcomer to the project, in the handful of years I've
participated it has always struck me how little alignment of goals there
is in  the community as a whole (I'm not saying it is surprising, just
that is so). Outside the very generic mission that OSM  "creates and
distributes free geographic data for the world" it is difficult to find
common ground. So not only to we tend to disagree on how to get to our
goal (the strategy) there are a number of different views on what those
goals actually are (outside of hand wavy very generic statements).

The exercise towards the end of the SWG to define core values for the
project could be seen as an attempt to document some aspects of what
common ground there is, however it never matured (IMHO) to a level that
the result could be published as a formal document and currently molders
well hidden on the foundation web site at
ttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Core_Values

I'm fairly sure that prior to any strategic exercise we need to take a
step back and have a look at what this project wants to achieve in the end.

Simon

 




___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Mikel Maron]

> The 2011/2012 board has actually done some steps in that direction, with 
>Mikel reaching out to a number of professional strategic consultants and 
>getting a broad idea of what (if anything) they could possibly do for OSM(F). 
>The results 
> were mixed and my reading (I wasn't on the board at that time) was largely 
> that with things as they are, we're not ready for such a step yet. If Mikel 
> himself would like to say a few bits about this?

Yes, at the Board's request, I held conversations with several folks about 
strategic planning and OSMF. That included the group that coordinated HOT's 
strategic planning 
(http://hot.openstreetmap.org/updates/2012-05-14_update_from_hots_strategic_planning_meeting),
 and a few folks involved in Wikimedia's strategic planning. Everyone was quite 
interested in our issues and dynamics; an open, globally distributed community 
is a challenge to any kind of organizational planning, an interesting one. 
Something like the Wikimedia process might be useful, eventually. But OSMF is 
not nearly as developed as Wikimedia was when they started this; in other 
words, OSMF is not yet ready, and recommendation was to find our way through 
top issues, develop things a bit more ourselves, then reassess.

There is a lot we can clearly be working on. Get Management Team up and 
running; update the Articles of Association; draw up Terms of Reference and 
Codes of Conduct for those handling OSMF assets; develop Local Chapters. This 
is a lot of documenting work, the kind of not super exciting but super 
necessary work Richard was talking about within the SWG. And reviving SWG might 
be a good way to address some of this.

So I agree with Frederik somewhat here. We're not ready for full on strategic 
planning, but there are very useful and clear things to do right now.

The real issue remains how to build momentum, drive, interest, excitement, 
cooperation, in this sort of work. There's are bubbles of interest in working 
this out, and then some tough discussion comes up which seems to derail it. 
It's not clear who's leading the charge. I think it will take a few dedicated 
folks, with the blessing of the Board, with open communication, but a focus on 
timely results. If 1-3 folks took the reins, and set the pace, then the rest of 
us could find places to constructively contribute to a more stable organization.

-Mikel




* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


>
> From: Frederik Ramm 
>To: Clifford Snow  
>Cc: Talk Openstreetmap  
>Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 7:09 PM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?
> 
>Hi,
>
>On 03.02.2013 23:59, Clifford Snow wrote:
>> I want to make sure we are clear. Are you signaling your belief that we
>> need some strategic planning?
>
>I'm hesitant to say "yes" because your sentence can mean a lot of different 
>things to different people.
>
>In the worst case, "we need some strategic planning" could be read as "the 
>OSMF should make plans for where OSM should be in ten years and the project 
>should then follow". This is certainly not a view that I would subscribe to.
>
>I tend to avoid the word "strategic planning" because it always sounds so 
>gloriously important (and attracts those who like that). Used by the wrong 
>people, the existence of "strategic plans" for OSM would make every mapper but 
>a pawn in some grand scheme thought out by the glamourous architects without 
>whom the project would be nothing. Nothing could be further from the truth and 
>we must avoid to give people such an idea.
>
>But of course it cannot hurt to think about the future together, try and 
>predict the problems we might be facing in five years, and make plans to be 
>prepared - rather than waiting for the problem to suddenly appear ;)
>
>The 2011/2012 board has actually done some steps in that direction, with Mikel 
>reaching out to a number of professional strategic consultants and getting a 
>broad idea of what (if anything) they could possibly do for OSM(F). The 
>results were mixed and my reading (I wasn't on the board at that time) was 
>largely that with things as they are, we're not ready for such a step yet. If 
>Mikel himself would like to say a few bits about this?
>
>Having a strategy is good but trying to find one can tie up a lot of resources 
>and personally I'm not sure if starting a committee is the right thing. I 
>think that OSMF should first get their house in order (I mentioned several 
>things reflected in the board minutes, like Management Team, Articles of 
>Association etc.) and then hopefully we are in a position where the board of 
>directors can spend more time thinking about "strategic" things, and then, 
>much, much further down the line, maybe we'll even be in a position to fork 
>out millions for a strategy consultant like Wikimedia did ;)
>
>This is all baby steps right now and IMHO not something that will yield 
>visible results in Pawel's desired half-year time fram

Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue

[John F. Eldredge]

Stefan Keller  wrote:

> Hi John
> 
> I think some EU countries (and Switzerland) also have this 5 years
> rule.
> But I'm not a professional lawyer.
> If anybody is, then I suggest that he could offer his services to the
> OSMF as a volunteer (e.g. for a 2nd opinion).
> 
> Yours, Stefan
> 
> 
> 2013/2/4 John F. Eldredge :
> > Russ Nelson  wrote:
> >
> >> Having read some more on this issue, I think the board has done the
> >> right thing. Apologies to anyone offended.
> >>
> >> Christopher Woods (IWD) writes:
> >>  > On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote:
> >> > > This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for
> >> publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They
> >> have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as
> releasing
> >> more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to
> ask
> >> for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and
> >> copyright issues.
> >>
> >> > I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that
> >> the TM
> >> > holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when
> >> mentioned in
> >>  > proximity of Google services.
> >>
> >> Again, without access to the C&D, is that in spite of having
> allowed
> >> generic usage of "geocode" for the last 12 years since their
> trademark
> >> was granted, they now claim that "geocode" in the context of a
> Google
> >> geocoding URL is a trademark infringement. As Chris says, risible.
> >>
> >> Deleting our links to the Google URL is the correct thing to do,
> >> because there is no way to link to that service without infringing
> >> their trademark (claim).
> >>
> >> My offer to create a non-infringing gateway stands.
> >>
> >> > Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a
> C&D
> >> is
> >> > not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach
> of
> >>
> >> > something discussed in the C&D or that it has actually done
> >> something
> >>  > wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and
> that
> >>  > Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation.
> >>
> >> The problem is that it's not OSM infringing the trademark. It's
> >> *Google*.
> >
> > If they have, indeed, allowed the generic use of the term "geocode"
> for 12 years without challenging it, then I believe that, under US
> law, the term is now legally classed as generic, and can be used by
> anyone.  According to
> , while there is
> no Federal law explicitly stating a statute of limitations, one
> Federal court decided that such cases were subject to the general
> five-year limit for non-capital offenses under Title 18 of the US
> Code.  Usually, the Federal courts follow the precedents set by the
> most similar state case.
> >
> > --
> > John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
> > "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
> than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Well, I should note that I am not a lawyer, either.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to 
think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM-newbies] Wiki documentation on GPS devices - please help answer some questions

[Greg Troxel]

Dudley Ibbett  writes:

> I would also add that the section on PDOP is rather technical for a
> newbie.  Perhaps this could be moved to a separate wiki page and the
> answer to the question changed to be more general.  If your GPS has a
> display then this is more likely to be given as a distance.  I must

It's true that PDOP is perhaps too complicated, but there's good advice
lurking: turn on your receiver and let it be still for several minutes
with a good sky view before starting to record.  In the woods, one can
go for quite a long time and not acquire some satellites, and with only
4 up high get atrociius accuracy.   By letting the ephemeris for all get
loaded before hiking, the track accuracy is much better.

For receivers without a satellite status page, the 'accuracy' number is
useful.  If one notices that you occasionally see a claim of '4 m', then
when it says '21 m' you know you are in bad shape, and should wait.
Basically, stay still with good sky view until that number gets to the
lowest value you typically see.



pgpJAnc9hxzB8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Takedown notices

[Lester Caine]

Simon Poole wrote:


Am 04.02.2013 10:21, schrieb Lester Caine:

OK - there is an 'official procedure' for dealing with copyright
infringement documented on
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Takedown_procedure through
which even 'Cease and Desist' should be handled? It is normal practice
nowadays to follow the 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' rules for
all copyright and trademark disputes relating to the internet.


The DCMA takedown process has nothing to do with trademark, or patent
disputes. It concerns itself solely with copyright issues (and that in
the US of A). Following the procedure provides us a safe harbour against
being sued in the US (for contributory infringement and damages). This
protection comes with the price of us simply complying with valid (in
formal terms) requests without making a determination if the material in
question is actually infringing the rights of whoever made the takedown
request. The basic procedure is given by the law and for example is
documented on the http://www.chillingeffects.org/ site (which unluckily
seems to be experiencing a lot problems recently).

I doubt that it would be wise or legally possible to publish the full
text of any takedown requests we have received, and if it is just for UK
data protection regulations. I do think it would be a good idea to
publish something along the lines of a "transparency" report on a
quarterly or similar base, however (DWG pls correct me) I don't believe
that outside of internal disputes there have been any noticeable number
of takedown or similar requests from third parties over the life of the
project to date so it is not going to make very interesting reading

My personal opinion only naturally.


Simon ... READ the Takedown procedure ... The reference to DMCA is taken 'In 
addition' to dealing with copyright infringements, and in the UK we treat 
trademark problems in the same way as copyright? What is actually wrong is that 
the on-line form is structured for the DMCA, but the procedure refers to all 
takedown requests? As it should ... The DMCA procedure does provide a consistent 
way of handling any request?


What is missing is a statement that the information WILL be published as part of 
the process of handling the complaint? But I think my main thought here is that 
WE need to know what we are and are not allowed to use, and only the original 
document would document that? Which saves someone having to 'rewrite' the 
information and possibly misinterpret it ;) In other words there is no logical 
reason for not publishing the information, and the sender should expect that to 
be the case in all C&D cases?


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Takedown notices

[Simon Poole]

Am 04.02.2013 10:21, schrieb Lester Caine:
> OK - there is an 'official procedure' for dealing with copyright
> infringement documented on
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Takedown_procedure through
> which even 'Cease and Desist' should be handled? It is normal practice
> nowadays to follow the 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' rules for
> all copyright and trademark disputes relating to the internet.

The DCMA takedown process has nothing to do with trademark, or patent
disputes. It concerns itself solely with copyright issues (and that in
the US of A). Following the procedure provides us a safe harbour against
being sued in the US (for contributory infringement and damages). This
protection comes with the price of us simply complying with valid (in
formal terms) requests without making a determination if the material in
question is actually infringing the rights of whoever made the takedown
request. The basic procedure is given by the law and for example is
documented on the http://www.chillingeffects.org/ site (which unluckily
seems to be experiencing a lot problems recently).

I doubt that it would be wise or legally possible to publish the full
text of any takedown requests we have received, and if it is just for UK
data protection regulations. I do think it would be a good idea to
publish something along the lines of a "transparency" report on a
quarterly or similar base, however (DWG pls correct me) I don't believe
that outside of internal disputes there have been any noticeable number
of takedown or similar requests from third parties over the life of the
project to date so it is not going to make very interesting reading

My personal opinion only naturally.

Simon


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Paweł Paprota wrote:
> Just a last word - I am not proclaiming doom. To the contrary - I 
> am full of energy and ideas but at the same time I am a bit afraid 
> that if this energy does not lead anywhere then I will be burnt 
> out in this project because of the frustration that I cannot 
> change anything.

One humble suggestion born out of bitter experience: do one thing and do it
well.

OSM has no shortage of barrack-room lawyers and the project will survive
quite well without any more. It could possibly (whisper it) even cope with a
few less.

But OSM does have a shortage of smart people working on awesome code. The
OWL stuff is terrific and it'll make a really big difference to the project
when it's done. Don't let the dramas of talk@ distract you. They rarely
achieve anything.

Or in other words: be a Paweł Paprota, not a Gert Gremmen. :)

cheers
Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Pawe-s-q-what-can-be-done-tp5747772p5747987.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Takedown notices

[Lester Caine]

OK - there is an 'official procedure' for dealing with copyright infringement 
documented on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Takedown_procedure 
through which even 'Cease and Desist' should be handled? It is normal practice 
nowadays to follow the 'Digital Millennium Copyright Act' rules for all 
copyright and trademark disputes relating to the internet.


What seems to be missing however is a documented procedure for handling those 
requests?


With regards the recent C&D notice, a statement has been made that 'we may not 
be able to publish the content of the document', but if the procedure simply 
said that these documents will be published as part of the process - as they 
should be - then there is not a problem. While not directly applicable, the 
Freedom of information act in the UK may well come into play if local 
authorities start using the data more formally. This is my own area of interest, 
and I am providing systems to locations that are covered by the act. The OSMF 
needs to have clear internal policies in place to cover that situation.


What I would suggest is required is a section of the 
http://www.osmfoundation.org website that provides access to all of this 
information. Since the OSM project is open, it would make sense that in addition 
to publishing the material, the 'wiki' process was used to allow comments to be 
added to a request, but that would be determined by the documented procedure.


United Kingdom law takes precedent over anything that the OSMF does ;)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?

[Paweł Paprota]

On 02/03/2013 10:51 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

I don't know exactly what "git log" you mean. OSM is a whole universe
of software; a part of that is visible on
https://github.com/openstreetmap/. The bit that is on
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website is but a tiny
 fragment of it. The number of Top Ten Tasks completed would only be
 suitable if you had something to compare it to ("in 2011 we managed
 to close 4 tasks but not a single one in 2012" or so).



I meant the OSM platform aka the main website aka API aka Rails Port and
related services.

But this would start whole another discussion "is the main website
relevant" etc. Of course it is and we should have a lot of features
there because people (and the media for example) are judging the whole
project by it - but let's not discuss this further in this thread...

I am glad that this thread has happened. A lot of people say it's just
flamewars and it breaks the community. I think such threads serve a
purpose and it's good to have them to exchange viewpoints.

It's a new week, I am prepared to agree that we maybe disagree in some
points and continue working on OSM.

Just a last word - I am not proclaiming doom. To the contrary - I am
full of energy and ideas but at the same time I am a bit afraid that if
this energy does not lead anywhere then I will be burnt out in this 
project because of the frustration that I cannot change anything.


Let's hope that we can find a way to work together in the coming months.

Paweł

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk