On 12 Oct 2009, at 24:05 , Frederik Ramm wrote: > Apo, > > I don't know about the specific case you are talking about. But on > a more general note, I am sure that we will be seeing stricter rules > for bots, where instead of *politely asking* for things to be > discussed before the bot runs & properly documented, we will in the > future *demand* that this is the case and threaten to suspend bot > accounts that don't play by the rules, and revert their edits. >
this is exactly why I raised this again. > I don't think that there will be an approval process for bots in the > near future (simply because of the manpower required for such > approval). we need some process. doesn't have to be formal or same each time. Just a minimum > 1 user to make such a risky thing like a bot. If a bot user can't prove this was done and documented it will be blocked on any user request without waiting for feedback to keep damage under control. I am sure there will be at least 5 volunteers to check the concept and code for each bot if it's posted to talk. Still no guarantee but fundamental bugs will be fixed before any big damage. a second step must be a dry run with verification of the changes done. > > We might also ask bot users to flag the relevant accounts as "bot > accounts", to allow easier filtering on the user side ("I am not > interested in changes done by bots"). this should be a requirement. maybe we should even monitor accounts for big edits across the planet in short time and block them automatically if they are not approved bot accounts. > > Bye > Frederik _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk