Meinst du eventuell den Open Location Code (oder auch Plus Code) von Google? Hat jetzt zwar nichts mit UTM zu tun aber löst irgendwie auch das gleiche Problem.

Ich weiß aber überhaupt nicht, ob das Auffinden der Baustellen ein ernsthaftes Problem darstellt bzw. irgendjemand dann die W3W-Hinweiser verwendet. Ich rege mich in erster Linie darüber auf, dass wir Geld für so fragwürdige Firmen/Geschäftsmodelle ausgeben.

Hi Allan,

interesting read, thanks for collecting and your efforts!

I think it is debatable if you could/should state who you spoke with, as the viewpoints are aggregated and only contain unattributed quotes. Still if you (or the persons interviewed) demand to be unnamed this has to be accepted. I am still interested in a full list though :-)

Anyway, I’d at least be very interested in some basic information of “statistics”. I share many (or at least some) of the points mentioned in your summary. But somehow I’d like to also understand in how far this survey is ‘representative’. Key facts I’d be very much interested in:

• How many of these conversations were with people from the US, Europe, Africa, Asia?

• How many of the participants were male, female, diverse?

• How many of these conversations were with people having a commercial background compared to the ones without? (e.g. the AI section sounds like you talked to all corporate member)

• To how many corporate members did you talk to? In how many different conversations?

These would be the questions I am interested in. While I understand that you probably didn’t specifically ask anyone for e.g. their gender, a rough estimate should still be feasible.

Thanks,
Peda

Hi Allan,

honestly, I am a bit disappointed and confused by your reply.

Yes, you did write about “legal discrimination”. But the (cited) question was actually posed by you and imho it implied that you think that discrimination of payed vs volunteer mappers is not ok. So if I misunderstood you, it would rather boil down to the issue/question, what value is higher: The Organised Editing Guideline or the Diversity Statement (Christoph asked a similar one).

I guess the answer to that question is not even important as we currently still don’t know the intention of the Diversity Statement. I.e. will I face punishment violating it? Will I be excluded from conversations,…?

You say, my point 1 is about “legal discrimination”, but imho this is based on the existence of the Organised Editing Guideline. But without its existence, would I even be able to suggest the creation of such a Guideline? A bootstrap problem.

Regarding my second point, I mean, you’re saying it yourself: “If there is consensus on amending it, it will be amended”. This is not even questioning if introducing it in the first place was a good idea! As far as I understand it, this is also no question or objective for the committee that is supposed to be created to evaluate if the Diversity Statement should be kept at all or not.

And lastly, all the talk about paralysis is at best a strawman. Yes, I want a board that takes decisions. But I want those decisions to be based on community consensus or consultation and not on a sporadic and interim majority within the board.

Btw, as for my former post: Somehow the subjunctive form that I like to use in German language doesn’t seem to translate properly to English: I accept and envy you being retiree :-)

Peda

Hi Allan,

I have issues following all discussion points (language-wise, as we get discriminated as non-native speakers :-)) in this conversation but I think Christoph is doing a great job here already. So let me restrict to two small points I want to add that were left out as of yet (I think).

Why would we want to discriminate against a mapper somebody else is paying versus a volunteer mapper?

I want to point out that a (surely non-representative) community survey about paid mapping cleary expected this kind of discrimination! I guess it’s always a matter of perspective what discrimination really means. You could also argue that a retiree like you is discriminating against a worker like me as you can put more time into the project, your opinion, your views. Imho a strong driver for the community’s view on paid mapping was based on the time and force they can put into “consensus driven” development.

Despite this, if this is all such a “long time coming” (as Mikel put it) and if it’s of such a relevance and not mostly motivated by the latest twitter outrage, I wonder, why the text wasn’t shared and discussed in the open before agreeing on it. I mean, that’s what we usually do with most of our guidelines and policies, isn’t it? Why not this time?

Peda

Christoph, das ist wirklich großartig analysiert und geschrieben! Danke, ich bin begeistert. Deine Hoffnung kann ich allerdings nicht teilen, schließlich hat der Mut mindestens ein Vorstandsmitglied (du weißt wer du bist) schon bei der zugehörigen Abstimmung verlassen. Warum sollte das im Komitee besser werden?

I also had a quick look at the numbers. Btw, do you happen to know what the first column and the last column in the ballots raw data are meant to mean?

If you’re looking at ballots that gave 7 options, Tobias and Nuno had the most mentions there. As the 6th option Tobias was mentioned 58 times and Nuno 68 times and as 7th option Tobias was mentioned 72 times and Nuno 73 times. The next most frequent one was Jo with 62 mentions with overall 331 ballots filling the list up with 7 candidates.

The most common duplicated ballots voted Tobias for position 1. E.g. 29 ballots with Tobias, Joost, Stereo; 11 with Tobias, Joost; 8 with Tobias, Stereo, Joost and further 8 with Tobias, Stereo. There also seem to be 19 empty ballots (I thought it had been less).

If you look at uniqueness of ballots (as Rory made some statements regarding the possibility to sell your vote): 398 ballots are unique! Of those 78 had Tobias as option 1, 77 Joost as option 1, 73 had Miriam option 1 and still 66 had Stereo as option 1. So no statistical conspicuity for sold voted :-)

Further there had been 14 ballots naming only a single candidate: 5 of which named Tobias, 3 named Joost and 3 named Geoffrey, 2 named Miriam and 1 named Stereo.

Well, I hoped to answer questions not to raise more new ones :D

As for participation in discussions: My stance (since start of OEG discussions within the board) was, that participation in a public and transparent discussion are ok even with CoI. We briefly discussed this, but I can’t remember the details as I was happy enough that we eventually will move to the public part of the meeting for further OEG discussions. So someone else would have to answer that.

As for voting on the policy: I can’t argue about Mikel’s or Martijn’s intention. They were mostly disputing the existence of the circular resolution.

Regarding the last question: I don’t think it played a role. But to be honest, I had major trouble following the conversation due to lack of better english knowledge :(

Christoph, I want to comment on a few points you made and I’m trying to shed some light on questions you have. At least where I think that I don’t violate confidentiality.

We did not discuss whether Mikel and Martijn may take part in the private session. Neither of them actively participated in the interview of Heather and Frederik. They just remained silent until we were finished.

The interview was chosen, because we don’t have a CoI policy (yet). It was a way of finding out whether Frederik or Heather had a potential CoI becasue of their job.

Both Heather and Frederik gave a small description of their work and a few questions were asked. I tried to explain that asking these questions is not meant as a lack of trust or an attempt at silencing them, but it is our duty to the community to be thorough on matters like conflict of interests.

The three of us (Paul, Kate and I) discussed briefly how to continue and decided that a vote was not necessary and we thought that both Heather and Frederik could participate in the OEG vote.

As a side show there had been discussions (with Mikel and Martijn) if we had to vote on OEG that day and if there had been a circular or not. My stance on it was, that we had a circular (I actually created it) but only 3 persons participated (Frederik, Paul and I). Although our Rules of Order (ROO) mention that this does not constitute a quorum, it forces us to vote in the next meeting (i.e. this meeting). Others disputed the existence of the circular. It got a bit heated but in the end this was rather irrelevant and now after the meeting it seems to have clarified that the confusion resulted from a mistake made by me: While I noted that I start a circular on the board mailing list, I seem to have done some mistake (no idea what) in loomio (our tool for circulars) so the other board members did not receive a notification mail.

After all of that (I did not tell the story chronologicaly btw) we joined the public channel.

As for the other draft OEG: We have to ask or discuss its publication, I don’t remember us declining to publish it.

Peda

Sehr interessant Christine. Vielen Dank sowohl für diese Zusammenfassung als auch für deine Arbeit in der WG.

Dass du dich so für das FOSS-Thema einsetzt finde ich super und sehr wichtig. Es ist auch gut, dass du mit Nakaner jetzt einen weiteren Unterstützer hast. Dein Statement > Der Plan ist zu “@openstreetmap.org” umzuziehen. Ein Umzug von “@stateofthemap.org” ist nicht so ohne weiteres möglich, da dort neben der Mail auch wohl bis zu 10 Jahre zurückreichende Google-Dokumente dranhängen.

verwende ich auf jeden Fall bei der nächsten Diskussion als Lockin-Beispiel in OSM.

Was mir bisher ja nicht so direkt bewusst war ist, wieviel Zeit da eigentlich reingesteckt wird. Also jetzt auch speziell von deiner Seite für Scholars und Programm. Da fallen mir zwei Dinge zu ein: Erstens sollte man diskutieren ob man die Scholars nicht einfach komplett abschafft und das Programm wesentlich stärker aus der Community-Umfrage heraus entwickelt. Und zweitens ist es erstaunlich wer dann in der SotM-WG nach außen besonders emsig erscheint. Bitte mach die Chairperson (und dokumentier das dann auch gleich im OSMF-Wiki). Übrigens, dazu noch eine Frage: Du schriebst mehrfach sowas wie “Man hat mich beauftragt,..” – wer ist dieser “man”, wie oder von wem wurde sowas entschieden?

Für die Rundum-Kritik von Christoph bist du natürlich auch nicht zu beneiden *g* Aber positiv sehen: Es war nur die kurze Zugfahrt aus Italien .. es hätte auch der Heimflug aus Japan sein können! :-)

Christoph,

I don’t think our understanding really differs. I still guess that you exaggerate the case and/or I fail to properly express myself.

Btw, the above written is my personal opinion on that case and how I interpret what happened.

I didn’t say (and didn’t meant to imply) there’s an obligation “to give something back”. I just think that it’s a courtesy if we help as long as we don’t harm our values. I also think that it’s pretty common for donors to name an aim on how the money should be spent (the German ‘Zweckbindung’).

If I spent some money to FOSSGIS to use for the OverpassAPI-Server, I can expect it to be used for that only. If FOSSGIS e.V. is not able to, they have to return the money. That’s how I understand the legal situation at least in Germany. If I have to account for that donation to e.g. my wife before she finds out we now won’t be able to afford holidays any longer, then I’d be really happy to see FOSSGIS actually spent that money before the treasurer thanks my wife.

So no matter how it’s called, I see it as a normal donation that was aimed for a backup database server. This server was on the wishlist of OWG for a longer time and OWG made the decision how it had to look like. There was no other whatsoever contractual obligations (that I know of ;D). I’m not even sure we should call it a courtesy but only laziness that the post didn’t go out earlier.

Christoph,

Thanks for your write up. It’s always interesting to see how others perceive something from the outside, especially when they’re neutral on things (as I perceive your comments :-)).

I have two comments.

First, I am all for transparency but I think you exaggerate: We got a donation in July and wrote a blog post in December, i.e. 5 months later. You may call this a long time. But I think we owe it to the donor to only publish the news when the server is actually up and running to help them with their PR as well (i.e. give them something for their money). Btw, I don’t want to blame OWG here as it still took us ages to actually write our blog post in the end :*). Anyway, what I wanted to say is, that I’d agree to something like “this was not handled well, we were too lazy and too slow” or so. But I don’t think it was handled wrong per-se nor do I see a problem transparency wise as - like I said - I think we should cooperate with our donors as long as it doesn’t harm our transparency in the long run (which it didn’t).

Still, I like your suggestion, as a clear policy would help to make it clear what donors and OSMF can expect and what not.

Second, I like your suggestion and many things that had been said in the discussion on osmf-talk. However, I believe at the current time we owed it to the MWG to not delay this any further. In my opinion the MWG (and any WG for that matter) should be allowed to mostly work autonomously. There had been public discussion and every board member was free to comment on the draft at that point. We were asked to vote on the current program and not to start another discussion or give feedback what else should be done. Don’t get me wrong, I guess we agree that the program should be further extended, but this is topic for another discussion and it would have been disrespectful to not vote on the fee waiver program at the meeting.

Roland, I accidentally discovered that the SotM videos had been cut and uploaded about 2 weeks ago. So your video is online, too.

The tiger import with a huge amount of crap keys: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=tiger

Just as a note: Imho one should prefer the Simple Indoor Tagging. It’s supposed to supersede IndoorOSM. Especially it’s supposed to be much easier to use and more descriptive at the same time.

Fixed. Uploaded 1000 really easy tasks to begin with, Europe only for now. Worldwide coverage will follow soon.

I fell asleep before I could upload the challenge and discovered just today that there’s still a little bug. I hope to put it online tonight.

Danke 4arch für den Hinweis. Ich hab den Hinweis jetzt mal rausgenommen, da er für die Challenge sowieso nicht erheblich ist.

Die Challenge selbst geht übrigens hoffentlich heute Abend online, bin gestern eingeschlafen und es gibt da noch einen kleinen Bug ;)