On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Éric Gillet <gill3t.3ric+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 ? > The comparison between the Contributor Terms and AECoC is unfair. The Contributor Terms is a legal requirement. Users need to *explicitly* agree to the Contributor Terms in order to avoid legal issues and avoid breaking the law (such as adding data from copyrighted sources without the necessary license and permission). On the other hand, the AECoC is a community guideline. If you break it, there are no legal issues. So there is no legal requirement that guidelines have to be accepted by every user. But should the AECoC be *explicitly* accepted/voted on by users outside of legal requirements? It may be a nice to have that, but the AECoC has been existing since 2008, and was borne out of frustrations by a lot of users then about people making quick, wholesale changes (i.e., automated) without discussing them first. The fact that this guideline has been existing that long and with no major opposition to them existing in the first place (well some may quibble on a particular provision or two) effectively makes them a guideline by consensus. I don't agree that new users have to continually "ratify" this guideline. ~Eugene
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
