Hello, OSM contributions must follow the Contributor Terms <http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms>; these therms are being shown to new users and they must explicitely accept them before they can start contributing.
However, another distinct set of rules is also being enforced by the DWG : the Automated edits code of conduct <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct> (AECoC). In contrary to the Contributor Terms, these rules : - Are not shown to new contributors - Are not accepted by new or existing contributors - Doesn't seem to have been voted on before their "establishment" - Seems to have been written by an eminent, but small set of contributors (history <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct&offset=&limit=500&action=history> ) Like the Contributor terms, the AECoC is enforced by the DWG and can cause reverts by its members, on terms that have not been accepted by contributors. As such, I think that the AECoc in its current form should not serve as a basis for reversal of changesets by the DWG. If it were to, I think it should be put to an higher set of standards than the changeset it aims to direct. For example it could be audited with an RFC, then a vote, and finally being explicitely accepted by contributors. What are your thoughts ? -- Éric
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
