Hi Martijn, Gladly. I seem to recall that this is also one of the points that you asked questions about during the board meeting.
What we mean is that we’ll intervene for edits the community has issues with, and that we will not intervene for merely not following the guidelines. Maybe a few examples will help. If you organise a mapping activity and miss a topic when adapting one of the wiki template, and the local community has no issue with anything, no one is in trouble. If you use a special source you can’t share, and the local community understands and is cool with it, no one is in trouble. If you ignore a part of the guidelines and the community complains about that but agrees that the actual edits are excellent, we’ll kindly ask you to try to follow that part, but that’s probably it. For example, if you’re responding to a humanitarian emergency and don’t wait for 14 days. If there’s no wiki entry at all for an activity and the community complains about the edits, DWG would look into it. If the community is unhappy with some of the information it has received, and objects to the edits being made, and you ignore the objections, and the community complains, DWG would look into it. If you do everything by the book, but the local community is unhappy about the edits themselves and complains about it, DWG would look into it. But that’s very unlikely if you really did follow the guidelines. So the community truly has an effect on what DWG looks at. The guidelines are the best way we know to have a constructive relationship with the community, and a rich discussion is the most important part of it. Of course, following the guidelines also demonstrates good faith if the DWG needs to look into the edits. I hope this clarifies the intentions. Happy mapping Guillaume > On 10 Jan 2019, at 22:37, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > > Hi Guillaume, DWG, > > Thanks for the conclusion. I asked in a different email on this thread to > post this on the OSMF web site, to have a permanent, immutable copy that we > can refer to when it comes to enforcing / disputes. > > I am a confused about the statement 'not following the organised editing > guidelines isn’t an offence per se'. I am trying to make a connection with > what you said in the October 2018 board meeting: 'The DWG is going to enforce > [the guidelines] just as it enforces anything else which comes from community > consensus'[1]. If the guidelines are going to be enforced, could you add some > clarity to the decision making process? Who decides when non-compliance > becomes an offense and on what criteria? How serious of an offense, or how > many, would it take to be banned? > > Martijn > > [1] > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2018-10-18#Guidelines_contain_prescriptive_statements > > -- > Martijn van Exel > m...@rtijn.org > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, at 08:31, Guillaume Rischard wrote: >> The Data Working Group is happy to announce that our new Organised >> Editing Guidelines have now been officially put online on the wiki at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Organised_Editing_Guidelines >> >> I'm happy to answer any questions here. In the meanwhile, here's my >> updated report. >> >> We at DWG are, first of all, thankful for all the constructive input we >> have received, from the advisory board, the humanitarian mapping >> initiatives and the mapping community. >> >> The organised editing guidelines took a lot of work to prepare. We >> received and integrated a lot of feedback to reflect consensus and >> existing good practice. >> >> We looked at what similar policies would exist, on OSM or in other >> organisations. I believe that no other project, open or proprietary, >> has faced this exact issue before. On OSM, contributors generally >> understand the current policies on automated edits and imports. We >> wrote the organised editing guidelines in a similar way, while adopting >> a slightly softer approach – not following the organised editing >> guidelines isn’t an offence per se. Elsewhere, Wikipedia has numerous >> policies some vaguely similar, but the problems they face are quite >> different, and their policies tend to be a lot more complex. >> >> Internally, we looked back at past problematic edits. We carefully >> wrote the guidelines and defined the scope to prevent those problems >> without creating loopholes or negative incentives like encouraging >> salami tactics. They are not meant to apply to community activities >> like mapping parties between friends or making a presentation on OSM at >> a local club, but only to ‘sizeable, substantial’ activities. We wanted >> something that doesn’t scare casual events off while letting us >> regulate a geography class gone berserk or a misguided volunteer >> mapathon. >> >> We also didn’t want to set hard limits in stone since they would have >> to go back to the Board constantly if we need to refine exactly what >> falls under the guidelines. >> >> Humanitarian activities deserve our fullest support. We therefore >> adapted the guidelines for them, both implicitly, by requiring only a >> best-effort approach, and explicitly, by exempting emergencies from the >> two-week discussion period. Some humanitarian edits have been >> problematic before, and the guidelines are easy to follow; a blanket >> exemption would send the wrong signal. >> >> We saw the amount of corporate good will at SotM, the tensions in the >> community, and the (dis)organised edits that mappers have referred to >> us. It is good for everyone that those guidelines are now online on the >> wiki. Good actors, existing and new, will be able to trust clear >> expectations. The community will be confident that this is the >> consensus that will be respected. Confused newcomers will get a >> blueprint for a successful organised edit. >> >> We wrote guidelines that are easy to read and follow and provide >> clarity on how good organised edits should run without having a >> chilling effect on them. >> >> I’m glad that this project is now concluded, and am convinced that it >> will be a good thing both for OSM and for the OSM community. >> >> Guillaume >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
