Our case revealed a serious problem. This problem is not only of ignoring international law, but also a problem of lack of transparency in an open community-driven project. The boil was present for a while now, but this case is where its existence became apparent. Data Working Group now is not what it was when it was created, and not everyone is happy with what it turned into. Currently it is a non-transparent OSM body that answers to no one but has serious influence on decision-making inside OSMF, as three out of seven OSMF Board members are also DWG members.
Our indignation and our actions have flushed out this issue into the open. We must, however, remain calm and patient. We should inform OSM community and draw attention to the issue as it is the only way to see it properly resolved.
This text is not mine but I agree. OSM currently lacks rigid rules or firm agreements concerning community, it lacks some sort of social contract. While this approach has certain advantages, it utterly fails in case of internal conflict in the community, and resolving such a conflict is challenging (to say the least).
(careful, language. I would use a spoiler tag if Markdown had one) or, for English-speaking people, roughly
“System of assumed defaults” has serious benefits for rule-making in small communities as
- it is fast to build, and
- it allows jumping straight to business instead of paperwork
However, when such a system breaks causing a conflict, troubleshooting it is a clusterf–k because you’ll go nuts before you figure out all the defaults explicitly and find an error to blame.