Thanks for the notice, Heather! I took it upon myself to gather feedback from the Ukrainian community and add it to the wiki.

To sum up my points, my current concern is not that

If you think that there’s something that the DWG should do that it isn’t doing then please let us know

you’re not doing something you should do.

On the contrary, I believe you do something you shouldn’t.

@SomeoneElse That was exactly what I’ve meant by “not providing reasonable explanation”. The “explanation” Frederik provided is problematic on several occasions, so I’m confused about where to start. 1. It is clearly based on his own opinion - he specifically says that “he considers is hate speech”, not that it actually is one. 2. He breached DWG Ban Policy several times by a) interfering with something that isn’t meant to be policed by DWG. DWG is a Data Working Group, its sphere of competence is clearly described in the same ban policy: preventing vandalism and edit wars. As such, he clearly abuses his powers. b) not trying to contact the user beforehand (although he should be involved in the matter to begin with, see a) c) applying a 10 yr ban (a clearly exclusive punishment) without ensuring consensus from the entire DWG first, as the policy demands. You have just confirmed this since you are both DWG members and you wrote “I’ve not been involved in this particular dispute until now”. A ban accompanied by a demand is still a ban. I encourage you to try and prove me wrong though. d) providing an explanation which has little to nothing to do with the actual meaning of the phrase - he implies that the phrase somehow praises burning people. Since he’s German afaik, that is understandable. He may not know English very well. Still, I can’t understand where did he get this notion of “burning people”, when in the original phrase there was no mention of people (and he clearly misunderstood the meaning of burning). What prevented him from asking first, shooting later is currently beyond me. I have my theories but I prefer to keep them to myself for now.

There’s one thing I can agree on: burning people is not OK in my book. But that’s not the point here.

Considering etiquette, I can see its benefits for the community and do not question its validity. But I can’t see how is it related to user pages.

Sounds sensible. I already participate in the discussion over “disputed territories” proposal and encourage you to do the same. Your input is highly welcome.

Oh, and please, get well :)

@rorym

I believe what tkk meant was that OSM data is used by commercial companies, and there are companies that turned using OSM data into a business of its own (like Geofabrik or Mapbox). Moreover, many companies not only use the data but contribute back to the project, like providing hardware for running tile servers, programming (Google conducted a summer of code to help develop some OSM tools) etc. Also, corporate OSMF members and corporate representatives on the Advisory board.

Mind you, that’s not a bad thing. It is beneficial for both the companies (as many see this activity as “work for public good”, which it is in my humble opinion) and OSM (as our membership fee alone is not enough to keep the hamster running). However this is also dangerous if we make ambiguous decisions on the future of OSM.

@tkk Thanks for your support. I don’t think I can explain the pain and danger of war to someone who’s never seen it firsthand. I know I’m harsh sometimes, but that is one of the effects of personal experience in this case. I know how this media propaganda machine works on my own home region, how it shatters families and uses every chance to incite hatred. Seeing how DWG exposes OSM for it is… difficult.

I am currently participating in proposal discussions on disputed borders, and I suggest all the others to do the same. If DWG can’t do its work properly, it’s up to us to resolve this in a civilized and productive way.

@Adamant1 >Its not giving them any sort of win by making the map this way though.

Except it does. You are not familiar with Russian propaganda. They are already using it to state that the world recognizes Crimea. They are not interested in disclaimers about DWG’s “non-political” stance, nor are most of the people. And by telling us to explain that to millions of people DWG is shifting responsibility from itself on us.

We should honor their decisions even if we might disagree with them.

Why? They are common people, just like us. Their position alone does not make them more qualified.

It will probably be forgotten in a short time like every other controversy anyway.

Sorry to ruin your mood, but many people tend to say that about the war we have on our hands for the last 4 years. That it will “dissipate” on its own. WW2 didn’t just “dissipate”, nor will this war. Just so with this case. We can’t forbid OSM use Leaflet, but its author already regrets making it for OSM. This is a showcase situation. DWG’s intentions could be good, but the results are threatening - we tend to call such people useful idiots (no insult intended).

its better then letting an endless edit war happen

The problem is, Andy and Frederik are the opposing side in this “edit war”, while “true” moderators should maintain neutrality.

There is no such thing as one exception.

I totally agree. That’s why we also oppose this decision. We either use “ground truth” rule for every disputed territory (and drown in conflicts, tearing the community apart and ruining the project in the process) or find a compromise that every side will follow.

DWG did not even try to find a compromise here, and they prefer bans to talking things over. In my opinion, it’s not what I would call ‘productive’.

Oh, and for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please, can someone tell Andy Townsend and Frederik Ramm that Russia did not annex Ukraine. I’m tired of seeing that in the blocking comments.

You may dream about Russia annexing Ukraine privately, but please, do not share your dreams with us.

Not sure. Adding “ad hominem” labels tends to cheapen the argument. Maybe limited attacks on a person are perfectly valid in case when a person acts from a position of physical power. I mean, if we entrust a banhammer to a man, we should be pretty sure he is a decent one in terms of following and applying rules, right?