> "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented >and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are >currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand >why.> I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather >than the board You are questioning my motives and my affiliations. Yes, I wrote off the cuff, quickly in the middle of the thread. (Though have no idea what you mean by dog whistle here -- and I do know what a dog whistle is, I've just survived the US election :P). But sure, I'll take a little time here to do my best to achieve a clear communication -- no doubt I'll fall short, happy to keep trying. It is good we have guidelines for handling imports, mechanical edits, disputes, and a community and working group that works to protect the map. I helped start the DWG after all. I do think there is room for improvement in certain circumstances (I'll give an example below) -- particularly around the tone and depth of the communication, the right speed of action, and transparency of process. My motivation is pretty much the same as everyone's here -- create a great map welcome to contributions to everyone who shares the vision of OSM, and helps us collectively improve how we do it. And I'm getting involved again in the DWG as me -- this has not been discussed by the Board at all, and serving as a Board member has no bearing on this discussion for anyone involved. http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/39517002 is an example. There were issues with this import, sure. This was not vandalism, advertising, or a fatal breakage of the map -- not a situation where an immediate action was justified (and definitely there are other situations where immediate action is needed). An active mapper and an active community were communicating, acting to fix the problems. The reverter in this case choose to ignore the mapper and the community and took a unilateral action, in contradiction to some guidelines on the wiki. This kind of approach discourages community contribution and cooperation. We can do a lot better to cooperatively improve the map and how we map it.
We need guidelines and transparency on reverts and other processes of the the DWG, so the community knows best how to act when issues arise, and what to expect as mappers. We need to have a consistent understanding -- this will only help us in the DWG over time. Transparency educates everyone and has benefitted other parts of the OSMF, like the Board. Certainly not saying the transparency means all is visible -- there are definitely sensitivity topics, privacy implications, etc. So that's where I'm at. My next steps are going to be review what we have written up on the wiki (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_working_group, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes), assess where there's a need for more clarity or inconsistencies, and propose some edits. -Mikel * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, January 6, 2017 6:16 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: On 05/01/17 12:23, mi...@groundtruth.in wrote: * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron ... As Frederik said, better reporting and processing can benefit DWG. This is something I want to spend time on. I think that it's important that how we do this sort of thing as a project is discussed in whatever public forums are available (and right now the "most international" one we have is this talk list, alongside the other widely-used international community forums for different languages over at forum.osm.org such as the DE and RU forums there). Your "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports..." post above may have been something of a dog-whistle response to Frederik's post, but when I read things that talk about "the current revert regime" and say "Reverts should be held to the same standard as imports" and "well documented and visible plan" I read it as meaning "I want you to stop doing what you are currently doing in the way that you are doing it", and want to understand why. I'd much rather the direction on this came from the community rather than the board (and yes, there will obviously be as many different views as there are OSM mappers). If "the communication I've seen from community members making reverts has left a lot of rough feelings" then let's talk about it (for a start; which particular actions are we talking about? Was the data that was removed added when it shouldn't have been (for e.g. license reasons) and are we just talking about the tone of the conversation, or something else? Activities such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/44923663 (to take an example revert action from me yesterday) are going to become more common as more people use OSM. In this case the sequence of events was detect the problem, revert the vandalism, block the user and request that an admin delete the account (which was created just for that purpose). I'd argue that those actions (apart from block the user) should be able to be carried out by anyone familiar enough with OSM to recognise the problem, and we should actually encourage everyone in that position to do so - providing that they can recognise the difference between obvious vandalism (as happened here) and a business owner unable to get the hang of editing and renaming something nearby by mistake. I don't think that "a well documented and visible plan" would help here, unless that plan said "if you see something wrong, please take appropriate action to fix it" (which I've always thought was the 0th rule of OSM anyway). Anything too bureaucratic would just slow down the fixing of problems. There are lots of interested parties in OSM - all the way from individuals like me who 8 years ago were just looking for somewhere to store stuff from an old GPS (a route of footpaths and villages across Wales, as it happens) up through large non-profit and for-profit corporations, all of whom contribute greatly to the OSM ecosystem. On a personal note with the DWG I've found that the large organisations can generally look after themselves, and there's a role for standing up for the "little guy", whether it's a new mapper in an established community or (as in the SADR case upthread) an attempt to remove a country - for some definition of country - from the map. It's important that as a community we talk to each other and listen to what everyone else has to say, especially when (as in the "wikidata" case) everyone has the best interests of the project at heart, just different visions of what those best interests are. Best Regards, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
