Assigning local DWGs gets the job done faster in a local level as they can
easily find out if the edits are vandalized due to first-hand knowledge of
the data; and immediate lock out of the account can help control
additional vandalized edits. And this can be performed faster as the local
DWG is on the same time zone.
And having a global DWG as an escalation point would make a "final"
decision in case there is a need for it. If there is a need for
arbitration, this setup would be beneficial and would foster transparency.
Though most of the time, these vandals would never insist for their edits
as most of the time they are just trolling around and escalation would most
likely never happen.
Local DWGs, IMHO are beneficial for faster response.
Ervin M.
*Schadow1 Expeditions* - A Filipino must not be a stranger to his own
motherland.
http://www.s1expeditions.com
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:57 AM, maning sambale
> wrote:
> > Dear everyone,
> >
> > This is a thorny issue bit will ask anyway. ;)
> >
> > Not very often, but we do encounter questionable contributions.
> > Normally, local mappers would contact the specific contributor to
> > explain and provide guidance. But in some cases, these messages were
> > ignored and the contributor continues to do questionable edits.
> >
> > There is a DWG [0] to resolve such issue. We do understand that DWG
> > members are volunteers like most of us and local issues might not get
> > attention immediately. I would like to discuss the possibility for
> > our local chapter/community to form our own sort of DWG where we can
> > address local concerns/disputes.
> >
> > We have a few active and trusted volunteers who can discuss and
> > resolve such issues. But in rare occasions we think we should have
> > the rights to do "temporary blocks" within our local areas.
>
> Dear Maning,
>
> I wrote a post on talk-us@ that addressed some of the issues you
> mention. It was posted in November 2013, and the link in the archives
> is
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-November/012171.html
>
> It seems that you are doing the right things. You suggest in your
> email as I suggested in my post, and as others have elsewhere, that
> local mappers reach out to each other to discuss challenging behaviour
> and come to understanding and consensus where possible. Where and
> when that effort falls short, reach out to the DWG for further
> assistance.
>
> Do follow up with d...@osmfoundation.org, if you haven't done so
> already. From Serge's recent post, it seems that they aren't
> deliberately ignoring you. :-)
>
> I suggest that you consider volunteering for the DWG, and have one or
> more of your trusted local mappers do the same. it doesn't make sense
> to me, to have a Local DWG. There is no Local Database, only the one
> global database. Unnecessary duplication of effort by creating a
> second and subservient dwg seems a poor option compared to
> participating in an existing dwg.
>
> Volunteers acting in their role as DWG members will strive to do so
> while maintaining a careful balance in many ways. One form of balance
> they must seek is to apply sufficient local knowledge, and
> understanding of local cultural and other contexts, but not to be so
> entwined in local context as to be inappropriately biased. They must
> strive to seek solutions that consider the global and local context,
> each in appropriate measure, as Simon indicated in his post.
>
> best regards and happy mapping,
>
> Richard
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
