[OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[maning sambale]

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.

[0] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group
-- 
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
--

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Serge Wroclawski]

Maning,

Are you concerned about a specific issue in particular? Is there
something that you've complained about that the DWG hasn't acted upon,
because I haven't seen any mail from you to the DWG.

If there's a specific issue you're concerned about, I think the best
step would be to contact the DWG.

And if there are specific trusted members of the community there who
have this much spare time to work on DWG issues, they should volunteer
for the DWG.

AFAIK neither have you asked for anything, nor have any new volunteers
stepped forth for consideration.

- Serge


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.
>
> [0] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> --
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Kathleen Danielson]

Manning, I think this is a great idea. It would be great to give local
communities even more ownership over the map/data in their area.


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.
>
> [0] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group
> --
> cheers,
> maning
> --
> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
> --
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Yves]

I think if someone in a community wants to volunteer for this kind of job, I 
think he/she would be welcome to the DWG.
For language reason, he would certainly endorse local issues, but with a larger 
view: remember that OSM is a global project.

Imagine the fun in dealing with someone not happy with the local DWG 
complaining to a main DWG ...


On 14 avril 2014 13:57:43 UTC+02:00, 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.
>
>[0] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group
>-- 
>cheers,
>maning
>--
>"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
>wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
>blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
>--
>
>___
>talk mailing list
>talk@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Simon Poole]

Am 14.04.2014 19:31, schrieb Kathleen Danielson:
> Manning, I think this is a great idea. It would be great to give local
> communities even more ownership over the map/data in their area. 
>
Please consider that while collection is local, usage is global.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 14/04/2014, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> And if there are specific trusted members of the community there who
> have this much spare time to work on DWG issues, they should volunteer
> for the DWG.
>
> AFAIK neither have you asked for anything, nor have any new volunteers
> stepped forth for consideration.

I'll hazard a guess that the OP felt intimidated at the idea of
becoming an actual DWG. Maybe the process of becoming one, and the
associated duties and powers are not clear enough ? I assume that DWG
members are free to focus on a particular area of the world, but that
any other requirements would be the same for a local member as for a
global one ?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Richard Weait]

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Ervin Malicdem]

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Simon Poole]

As Richard pointed out in his post, there is already an "in place"
practice of handling issues locally and only a small number of things
get escalated to the level of the DWG.

Naturally how good this works depends on the strength of the local
community, but I would wager a bet that if you can't do it informally,
you are going to have a large problem trying to put a working formal
organisation in place.

What would help is more support, for the cases that percolate up to the
DWG, to overcome language and cultural boundaries.

Simon



Am 15.04.2014 13:11, schrieb Ervin Malicdem:
> 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
> mailto:emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com>> 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
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
ta

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-04-15 13:11 GMT+02:00 Ervin Malicdem :

> Local DWGs, IMHO are beneficial for faster response.



Every time I have contacted DWG they have been reacting incredibly fast,
IMHO these times can hardly be bet by any other structure we might come up
with...

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[maning sambale]

> Is there something that you've complained about that the DWG hasn't acted 
> upon,
because I haven't seen any mail from you to the DWG.

There was one years ago, (see this email to the d...@openstreetmap.org
[0] which was also cc'ed to talk and talk-ph),
we didn't get a reply from the DWG.  Although for this case, local
mappers decided to revert the contributions.
As I said this was years ago, the process maybe faster now.

> I would wager a bet that if you can't do it informally,
you are going to have a large problem trying to put a working formal
organisation in place.

I disagree, I'm proud of our local community we are small but very
much involved with local
mapping and community building efforts.

What I am proposing is for us to handle local situations.  In most
cases, we where able to resolve things internally/locally.
As Richard posted in the talk-us list, "assume good faith" is always
our mantra.  Before taking any action (i.e. revertions),
we do conduct investigations and discussions with other active
mappers.  But there are rare ocassions where additional restrictions
(i.e temporary ban) need to be enforced to prevent further damage. For
international disputes, I think the main DWG should handle this.

> I suggest that you consider volunteering for the DWG, and have one or
more of your trusted local mappers do the same.

Would the DWG consider one member from the PH community to be a DWG
member and will the main person to look into
PH related reports?

[0] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2010-February/048358.html

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> As Richard pointed out in his post, there is already an "in place"
> practice of handling issues locally and only a small number of things
> get escalated to the level of the DWG.
>
> Naturally how good this works depends on the strength of the local
> community, but I would wager a bet that if you can't do it informally,
> you are going to have a large problem trying to put a working formal
> organisation in place.
>
> What would help is more support, for the cases that percolate up to the
> DWG, to overcome language and cultural boundaries.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Am 15.04.2014 13:11, schrieb Ervin Malicdem:
>> 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
>> mailto:emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com>> 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 f

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Richard Weait]

Hi Maning,

I'm just finishing a longer reply along these lines.  I think we are
in "vigorous" agreement.  :-)  Please see my followup, in a few
moments.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:11 AM, Ervin Malicdem  wrote:
> 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.

Dear Ervin,

I think that we are in agreement on almost everything.  Let me list
the points that I believe we are expressing as complete agreement.

- additional DWG-actors is beneficial.
- additional DWG-type coverage of timezones is beneficial.
- the process of local discussion, plus gradual escalation is appropriate.
- immediate reversion of obvious vandalism by local mappers is appropriate.
- probably others as well.  :-)

The only place we are differing on this matter, that I am aware of is
the description of the DWG-actor.  I prefer that they call themselves
"a DWG member based in $locality".  It seems that you prefer that they
describe themselves as "representative of the $locality-DWG".

The difference is subtle, and I believe that this subtle difference is
important.

- In the description that I prefer, the DWG and the members thereof
each do their best to serve the entire OpenStreetMap community, not
merely fractions of it.

- In the description that I prefer, any mapper who seeks assistance in
any place reaches out to only one DWG, and has assistance available
from each of the members as appropriate.

Maning asked, after I started this reply, would "DWG consider one
member from the PH community to be a DWG
member and will the main person to look into PH related reports?"

I will answer, not for DWG but for myself.  I expect that DWG will
respond after they have had a chance to discuss the matter and come to
a consensus.  DWG, if I am wrong and spouting nonsense, please correct
me here.  Otherwise, perhaps we can let this thread rest, and presume
that DWG will contact you within a few days?

So, answering for myself and guessing for DWG:-)  :

I hope that DWG will respond as follows:

Maning: would "DWG consider one member from the PH community to be a DWG
member [continued]"

DWG(guess): Yes!  Enthusiastically welcomed.

Maning: "[continues] and will the main person to look into PH related reports?"

DWG(guess): They should serve the entire community as best they can.
It is likely that they will be an obvious choice to be involved when
geography, time zones and personalities overlap.  In past, new DWG
members have taken the opportunity to observe-only, for a period of
time.  They are active within DWG and share experience, and freely ask
and answer within DWG, but take action externally, only with guidance
from a more-experienced DWG member.

[end of me awkwardly guessing what DWG might say. :-)  ]

If we imagine a situation where two mappers from different places
disagree about their edits in a third place, it might not be clear to
which DWG a third concerned mapper (from a fourth place?) should
report.  With one DWG, and many talented committed members, a mapper
reports to one place after attempting the earlier mediation options.

Best regards and happy mapping,

Richard

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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Henning Scholland]

Hi everybody,

I prefer a single/global DWG, which deals with conflicts. To my mind a 
global authority is necessary to deal with several cases. Eg. 
boundary-disputes, language-disputes of names, global vandalism and so 
on. "Local DWG" wont be that objective in some cases and/or it's not 
clear to the users out there, which of the DWG's should be contacted.


For Germany I can say, that most cases are dealed directly between the 
mappers. If they can't find a solution most cases are discussed in 
community and will be solved (solution and reverting, if necessary). 
Only a very small part gets to the DWG. Such a in official structure 
should be prefered. Because it distributes the knowledge to a wider part 
of the community.


If there are volunteers, who wants to participate in the work of the 
DWG, let us (DWG) know. Write a mail to us introducing yourself a little 
bit and let us know about your DWG-relevant skills.


Henning
Member of DWG


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

Re: [OSM-talk] "local chapter" DWG

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

   thank you Richard Weait for writing down what we at DWG would say
about this. I think you guessed it pretty good.

There are a number of angles in this.

First, we welcome new people from around the globe, and especially those
who are at home in a national community where we don't yet have  any
speakers of that language in DWG. DWG is not a self-signup working group
(probably the only of that kind in OSM), and we require that  people
apply to us for DWG membership. We will then usually ask them a few
questions to determine whether they are a reasonably experienced member
of OSM and if they have understood what the job is about, and then take
them on board expecting that they'll look and learn for a while before
slowly taking cases by themselves.

Just as Richard said, language, timezone, and familiarity with the local
situation will often make one DWG member the automatic go-to person, but
we don't want to have an exclusive relationship (all country X cases go
to person Y, and person Y only takes country X cases).

There's also something that hasn't been brought up in this thread,
namely that it is not impossible for a DWG member from a certain country
to be biased in a certain discussion, maybe because they had previous
mailing list fights with a complainant or so. It has indeed happened in
the past that a case in country X was not handled by the DWG member from
that country, but by another DWG member, just so that  there was someone
impartial dealing with the situation.

We're not in favour of full-blown "local DWGs" for now, but of course it
is tremendously useful if there are local groups dealing with local
problems, and escalating stuff to DWG only if they can't solve  something.

Maning, if you want to join DWG then we welcome your application at
d...@osmfoundation.org.

Bye
Frederik
for the OSMF DWG

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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