Martin, thank you. As mentioned, I am working on that internal deadline. The draft is currently under review.
How was your Saturday morning? Mine was writing and reviewing these drafts on Crimea and other topics. I warmly remind you that consensus building does take time. We are very much making every effort to meet the need. Heather Heather Leson heatherle...@gmail.com Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson Blog: textontechs.com On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 2:18 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Am Mo., 28. Jan. 2019 um 18:33 Uhr schrieb Heather Leson < > heat...@osmfoundation.org>: > >> Dear Martin and Colleagues, >> >> Since December, the Board has attempted to draft a public response. We >> are still discussing. I provided an update in the board meeting of January >> 17, 2019 - https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Board/Minutes/2019-01-17 >> >> Since that time, I have tried again to get agreement from the Board on >> the full details. We have a new board and there is much discussion about >> the text. >> >> I will try again tomorrow night to rewrite it and ask for permission to >> share from the Board. Also, a quick note about the comments in Weekly OSM. >> I am obliged to issue statements on discussions when the Board agrees to >> the content of the statements. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Heather >> > > > Dear Heather, dear Board, > > thank you for the update. I understand you are all volunteers and there > are also other pressing issues at the moment. Still it is now a lot of time > that has passed since Nov. 17 / Dec. 10, 2018, and we are in a kind of > limbo, because the board, in apparent conflict with its own > disputed-territories policy [1], reversed the Data Working Group decision > just a few days before the 2018 board elections, but so far did not provide > any kind of explanation or new policy to replace the former one. > > While it already felt quite strange on Dec. 10 that you just proclaimed > the annulation of the well-founded DWG decision without providing any kind > of explanations or motivations, it is now alarming that there are still no > explanations. While we do not have many general rules with regard to > mapping, the on-the-ground rule was certainly for many years the guiding > principle and foundation of every "OpenStreetMapping", and assured us peace > in problem areas, so deviating from it would seem such a major change of > direction, that I could not believe my eyes when I read it and no > explanation was provided along. > > Frankly, the way it was done, just before the upcoming elections of a new > board, and without actually bringing it to an end, would probably be > considered terrible political style, in the regions I am familiar with. > > My suggestion to the board would be to set yourself a deadline, until > which you will try to reach consensus within the new Board, and if you > cannot come to a common statement which supports the decision of the old > Board, you should reenact the DWG decision so we can get back to normal > operations. > > > Cheers, > Martin > > > > > [1] > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
