Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Dorothea Kazazi
Hello,

The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
dispute resolution panel:
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispute-resolution-panel/

.. and is asking for comments and feedback.
Please reply to this message ~ thank you.

warm greetings,
Dorothea

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Christoph Hormann-2
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>
> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
> dispute resolution panel:
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>te-resolution-panel/

I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
does not control itself...

For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
themselves.  See also:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy

Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.

Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
data users.

Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
(indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 8/4/20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.

Speaking as a DWG member, I always hoped that people would judge us by
the work we do, not how we got the job ;)

And about the matter at hand, the DWG has been asked whether they would
like to take on this extra responsibility and we have not yet responded
with anything definitive. On the one hand, this extra job would use more
of our resources and divert them from other important work; on the other
hand, any dispute within the community over editor presets and the like
would sooner or later bubble up to DWG anyway.

If a panel is created that is separate from DWG, we'd definitely have to
build ourselves some safeguards that avoid finding the two bodies on
different sides of a dispute ;)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

ebel
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
>
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
>
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
>
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
>
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Mikel Maron-3
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
>
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
>
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
>
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
>
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Yuri Astrakhan-2
Mikel, I might be misunderstanding what you meant, but in my opinion conformity is required for this type of project, and I do hope iD/JOSM/... help us achieve that. To clarify:

* features with the same meaning (type) should be mapped the same way, otherwise each consumer must understand all of them, and only large corporations will be able to hire enough people to parse & handle it all.

* it should be relatively simple for the community to add new types, and later to converge on how to map that new type, thus becoming a new "standard".

* multiple editors should encourage users to map the same types of features in the same way.

So yes, conformity is good because it allows us (consumers) to make sense of the data without having an army of developers.

Hope I'm making sense here, and stating the obvious. Captain out. :)


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:08 PM Mikel Maron <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
>
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
>
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
>
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
>
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Mikel Maron-3
Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?"

This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns.

While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals.

If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community.

As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
>
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
>
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
>
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
>
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Mikel Maron-3
It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion we’ve had on the board.

And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter.

I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?"

This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns.

While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals.

If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community.

As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
>
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
>
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
>
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
>
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Mikel Maron-3
More seriously the line “all interests of the OSM community” was one we talked a lot about on the board when writing this message, and had several versions, and indeed we touched on how to best designate what was needed in composition of the panel. I think it’s not possible to put together a specific formula, but think we should expand this section to touch on the kinds of things we would hope to see in the composition of the board. That certainly would be experience and expertise with OSM community and software development and mapping. I don’t think anyone is impartial on anything but we’d want people who are recognized as open minded.

We haven’t talked at all about transparency of selection and deliberations. I’m not sure it’s wise to be completely open in the work of disputes, but certainly having deliberations well minutes and explained makes sense.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:42 PM, Mikel Maron <[hidden email]> wrote:

It was a joke more aimed at Rory and a continuation of the similar discussion we’ve had on the board.

And yes I agree very much with the sentiment that we don’t want OSM to be dominated by companies. or any single point of view for that matter.

I’ve come to not like that quote because I don’t believe it’s often the case. And I think that there’s a lot of decisions which are favorable to all involved in osm, whether giant company or a single mapper. The dichotomy is not that pronounced if you look closely.

Mikel

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 5:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re: "Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?"

This sarcastic comment is not a fair response to Christoph's concerns.

While we hope that no one involved currently in OpenStreetMap would purposefully turn the community over to corporations, it is certainly possible to imagine this to happen little by little, if the community is eroded slowly, lacking safeguards and clear goals.

If the people who become leaders of the OpenStreetMap community have all of their experience and ideals based in the corporate tech sector, it will be unsurprising if they are naturally inclined to make decisions which are favorable to the interests of Facebook, Apple or Amazon, whether or not they benefit the OpenStreetMap community.

As a famous American reformer (Upton Sinclair) often said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:08 PM Mikel Maron <[hidden email]> wrote:
Rory, I don't know about you, but I'm certainly hoping for a bunch of corporate sell outs rubber stamping iD decisions and squashing the common mapper into conformity. Why else would we be doing this?

On Tuesday, August 4, 2020, 04:37:00 PM EDT, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:





The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
formed/elected/appointed/choosen. Just because the document doesn't
address one issue, doesn't mean the opposite, horrible option will
happen. Do you think I'm going to support some Old Boy's Network of
corporate employees?

What would you suggest for appointing & transparency?

On 04.08.20 21:30, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Dorothea Kazazi wrote:
>>
>> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
>> dispute resolution panel:
>> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispu
>> te-resolution-panel/
>
> I guess i am asking too much if i envision the board creating a panel it
> does not control itself...
>
> For context - the DWG, which is the traditional and broadly respected
> entity to resolve conflicts in mapping, is not controlled in
> composition by the board, it decides on accepting new members
> themselves.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Membership_Policy
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Data_Working_Group/DWG_Conflict_of_Interest_Policy
>
> Significant parts of the authority the DWG has among mappers derive from
> the fact that it is not composed of political appointees.
>
> Interesting also that the composition of the panel is supposed to
> reflect "all interests of the OSM community" but competence of the
> panel members on the subject, experience with and knowledge of mapping
> and tagging in OSM or in other words:  The competence to assess
> evidence on the cases they deal with and to deliberate on the matters
> in a qualified and knowledgable way, is not a criterion.  Neither is
> impartiality on prominent special interests like those of corporate
> data users.
>
> Transparency is limited to the ultimate decisions being made public
> (indeed important, would be interesting how this would function
> otherwise).  I guess that means both the nominations and selection of
> panel members as well as the deliberation and consulting of the panel
> on cases is going to happen behind closed doors.
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by ebel
On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Rory McCann wrote:
> The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
> formed/elected/appointed/choosen.

Quoting from the proposal:

> In appointing members of the Panel, the Board shall strive for Panel
composition (membership) that reflects [...]

Seems there are some eddies in the fabric of spacetime...

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Many processes not defined | Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Rory McCann (OSMF Board)
I meant, that the board hasn't decided how the board will
vote/appoint/choose the members of this panel.

On 05/08/2020 01:07, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Rory McCann wrote:
>> The Board hasn't decided on how the panel will be
>> formed/elected/appointed/choosen.
>
> Quoting from the proposal:
>
>> In appointing members of the Panel, the Board shall strive for Panel
> composition (membership) that reflects [...]
>
> Seems there are some eddies in the fabric of spacetime...
>

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

rory_mccann.vcf (138 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Roland Olbricht
In reply to this post by Dorothea Kazazi
Hello,

first of all I'm glad to read that the board addresses the sudden
funding hole for iD, and does in addition care about the critique around iD.

I would like to self-nominate for the software dispute resolution panel.

For my understanding of the task please (re-)read
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-June/006909.html
tl;dr: There is no silver bullet, hence no team of experts is going to
find one. Conflict resolution is painful work for all involved, but it
also likely to yield insight and an improved software. I see a panel's
member's job in encouraging the involved people to keep walking through
the resolution process.

I also promise resp. reserve the right to share or paraphrase (for the
purpse of removing personal issues) all communications regarding the
nomination process. There have been concerns about whether the
nomination process is balanced and being open is the best way to address
them. On a personal note: I have no doubts it is, and the artifacts we
currenty encounter are consistent with a board intensely keeping many
trains in their rails in parallel.

Regarding potential CoI:
- I develop the Overpass API but it is intentionally tag agnostic.
- I do not plan to put the Overpass API under the panel regime.
Thus, I do not expect any CoI from my contributions as developer to
OpenStreetMap.

Best regards,
Roland

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Jo-2
I support your nomination. You're a really good candidate for it. I would propose myself, but I don't, as I have almost zero experience with using iD.

Polyglot

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020, 06:47 Roland Olbricht <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello,

first of all I'm glad to read that the board addresses the sudden
funding hole for iD, and does in addition care about the critique around iD.

I would like to self-nominate for the software dispute resolution panel.

For my understanding of the task please (re-)read
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2020-June/006909.html
tl;dr: There is no silver bullet, hence no team of experts is going to
find one. Conflict resolution is painful work for all involved, but it
also likely to yield insight and an improved software. I see a panel's
member's job in encouraging the involved people to keep walking through
the resolution process.

I also promise resp. reserve the right to share or paraphrase (for the
purpse of removing personal issues) all communications regarding the
nomination process. There have been concerns about whether the
nomination process is balanced and being open is the best way to address
them. On a personal note: I have no doubts it is, and the artifacts we
currenty encounter are consistent with a board intensely keeping many
trains in their rails in parallel.

Regarding potential CoI:
- I develop the Overpass API but it is intentionally tag agnostic.
- I do not plan to put the Overpass API under the panel regime.
Thus, I do not expect any CoI from my contributions as developer to
OpenStreetMap.

Best regards,
Roland

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal for Software Dispute Resolution Panel

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Dorothea Kazazi
On 8/4/20 13:16, dorothea at osmfoundation.org (Dorothea Kazazi) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The OSMF board just published a proposal for a software
> dispute resolution panel:
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2020/08/04/proposal-for-software-dispute-resolution-panel/
>
> .. and is asking for comments and feedback.
> Please reply to this message ~ thank you.

I think this is a great idea and I would be interested in serving on the
panel. I do most of my edits with software besides iD (JOSM, Vespucci,
and StreetComplete), however I used iD almost exclusively for the first
2-3 years or so I contributed to OSM and still use iD from time to time
(mainly to make quick edits and map turn restrictions).

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk