Hi, On 01/04/2017 11:24 PM, Mikel Maron wrote: > Ok I hear you. Let me walk this back a step. Not the same standard, but > a standard beyond now that gives some visibility to the process. I know > there is a process of monitoring, analysis, communication and action > followed by the DWG. Let's document that. And a simple not burdensome > log of actions - summarizing the above. This visibility will improve > community understanding of the process, help to spot trends, and improve > everyone's work overall.
There's nothing in OSM that could not be improved, and DWG certainly isn't an exception. There's many things we'd like to improve, better reporting and processes among them. These are, however, general concerns that are not related to the handling of any one individual case. Day-to-day work has to go on normally while we design future improvements. (And while we also on-board new members to help us implement such improvements, as these rarely come without additional cost measured in work units.) In this particular case, we have clearly made a mistake by delaying for too long the revert of a large-scale mechanical edit that clearly violated existing rules. In some cases, the rules can be interpreted one way or another, but this here is not even a close call. Just like the tile policy says that you get blocked if you abuse the tile server, so does the mechanical edit policy say that un-discussed mass edits like this are subject to revert. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
