>>>>> "fr" == Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> writes:
fr> I welcome a discussion about rules - which ones we need, who makes fr> them, who executes them. It is clear that we need *some* rules, fr> but until now there's no formal community process to create or fr> amend such rules. fr> fr> I'm happy to hear any suggestions that people might have. How can fr> the will of the community be caputured and distilled into a rule - fr> and where should we work without any rules? In what areas do we fr> have to have rules that govern all of OSM, and in what areas can fr> we afford to defer to local communities? Thank you for addressing this issue in a constructive manner. Rather than (or before) discussing rules, it seems to me that it would be useful to start by establishing some basic principles which could guide OSMF activities. Below are a few principles which are widely accepted as foundations for good governance of community-based endeavours. - Openness/transparency. OSMF working groups are notoriously opaque, though some have improved over the last year by posting open minutes of meetings (which requires significant effort and which I applaud). Some of the technical measures implemented by OSMF are well designed in this regard; for example, it is possible for everyone to see the message posted by an admin justifying an account block. But historical information such as the number of blocks imposed per week are missing AFAICT (allows people to monitor for admin abuse). - Subsidiarity. OSMF and its working groups should only perform those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. Discussions with contributors who seem to need assistance should be delegated to the local community (OSMF should endeavor to establish a network of formal correspondants per country/region, and use country-wide osm mailing lists otherwise). OSMF could assist local communities by giving them access to tools designed to detect vandalism or large numbers of errors. - Consultation and dialogue. OSMF and its working groups should always seek input from contributors and other interested parties before making decisions. - Proportionality. Any sanctions imposed by OSMF representatives (such as account blocks) should be proportional to the damage incurred or intended. [This is one principle which OSMF seems to respect.] - Accountability. OSMF representatives who are given special privileges (such as the ability to block contributor accounts) must be accountable for their actions. - Respect for contributors' privacy. This seems easy to understand, and I am happy with OSMF's performance in this area. -- Eric Marsden _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk