Like so many others who compare OSM to their favorite garden variety tech project you seem to not consider that those are all highly culturally non-diverse projects. What OSM tries to do is something very different. Running OSM like a garden variety tech project would be comparatively easy and this would avoid the need to deal with a lot of problems OSM is struggling with. But it would also mean giving up on the core of what OSM tries to achieve - creating a map of the world by the people for the people based on these people sharing their local knowledge in egalitarian, self determined cooperation.

Ok, i will try to explain the naming problem in more detail.

Most - if not all - of the features of the OSM website have descriptive names that are translatable (and are practically translated) into other languages. Think of things like the user diaries (Benutzer-Blogs in German) or changeset discussions (Änderungssatz-Diskussion in German) are named in each language in a purely descriptive fashion. Although these features might have first been named in English there names in different languages are on equal level descriptions of these features in these languages.

The name ‘microcosms’ for your feature OTOH is an English language metaphor and wordplay with the abbreviation OSM that is derived from the philosophical concept of macrocosm and microcosm which originates from ancient Greece. This metaphorical use is non-descriptive. Translating the philosophial concept of macrocosm and microcosm into a different language (which at least in many European languages ins not a translation but a transliteration of the Greek name) does not result in a descriptive name for the feature in general. This is further aggravated by the use of the plural of the word which in its original meaning is not typically used in the plural form. So someone tasked with labeling the feature in a different language is confronted with the non-satisfying choice of either

• translating the name without the word play and without consideration of its metaphorical use - which is not very intuitive and likely often misleading, especially in languages from cultural context very different from the European one.
• inventing a different, non-metaphorical and purely descriptive name or
• using the original non-translated name as a foreign language artefact.

Any of these choices make the non-English versions of the website fundamentally different to the English language. This would be a novelty on the website and as such a political statement.

Not to mention that the use of such a wordplay metaphor based on a philosophical concept that is a fairly poor metaphor for the feature in question is not likely to be very intuitive to English language users either.

I have not looked at the actual functionality of the feature yet but none the less two general comments:

• i would strongly suggest reconsidering the naming - see also this comment. This would be the first feature on the OSM website that has a non-descriptive, non-translatable name which would have massive practical and political implications. I can explain this in more detail in case it is not clear.
• if integrated into the OSM website it seems this would be by far the most complex feature and as such would for many not be usable without comprehensive user oriented documentation. Some serious thought should IMO therefore go into how to produce and maintain such documentation in the languages the OSM website is generally available in.

For better understanding of the goals here - do you develop this on your personal time or does this get financed by anyone else?

For clarification - i was talking about OSM verifiability. As you demonstrated in your analysis you can surely talk in a scientific way about the naming of features and the history of it. If the results of such analysis can be documented in OSM is a different question. That depends on if that information can be independently verified locally without depending on secondary sources. If we as Europeans map remotely in an area outside Europe where we might not even be familiar with the local language that is usually hard to find out w.r.t. names. What Foucauld found out about local names a hundred years ago might have accurately described local knowledge back then and might form a significant component of our remote European understanding of the names in the area today. It however most likely is not telling much about currant name use in the area by locals.

Regarding your image - that looks fine - it is the larger area Bing screenshots that bothered me.

I think this is a great example for showing the problems of trying to document non-verifiable information in OSM - as well as how the lack of verifiability often manifests. It also shows well how projects to document a naming practice - like historically Foucauld or today Wikipedia - are not neutral observers documenting the cultural practice but become part of and influence the naming culture themselves - whether they want to or not.

One other thing - the false color images you show to illustrate the location you are writing about gives a bit of a wrong impression of the appearance of the region - especially the relations in color between the different surfaces. Shameless plug for a more consistently colored image:

http://maps.imagico.de/#map=7/24.637/6.746&lang=en&l=sat&ui=0

@CjMalone - what you make of the spread in hourly rates that can be observed is obviously a political question. I am really glad that we do also have applications asking for roughly a realistic market rate for paid work. That means the OSMF will need to position itself in that regard. That is not a very thankful task for the committee of course but it is also one you could see coming given the board, when setting up microgrants program, has specifically allowed paid work as part of the grants without specifying concrete parameters for that.

Since it seems the advise at the end of my previous comment is by some understood differently from how it is meant i will try to clarify by re-stating it in German.

Beim Lesen der Bewerbungen für die Microgrants werden viele vermutlich - bewusst oder unbewusst - geneigt sein, sich auf Grundlage der Bewerbungen ein Bild von den Menschen zu machen, die diese Bewerbungen eingereicht haben. Ich möchte davon abraten. Die Vergabe der OSMF-Microgrants geschieht wie ja alle sehen können im Wettbewerb der Bewerber zueinander. Alle, die sich bewerben, werden versuchen, die eigene Bewerbung so zu gestalten, dass ihre Chancen maximiert werden. Dass hierbei im Vordergrund steht, das eigene Vorhaben in einem besonders gutem Licht erscheinen zu lassen und nicht, dem Leser ein ausgeglichenes Bild von der Person des Bewerbers/der Bewerberin zu vermitteln, dürfte offensichtlich sein. Schlussfolgerungen aus den Bewerbungen über die wirtschaftliche oder persönliche Situation der Bewerber zu ziehen ist nicht ratsam.

No. If i have to guess i’d say our very different views on these things stem largely from very different exposures to cultures and living conditions very different from our own current circumstances.

There is no simple relationship between economic and social privileges and available free time. Not even in a country like the UK or Germany let alone globally.

If you want to get to know people, learn about their life, their hopes, their concerns and their values money is about the worst choice as a catalyst you can think of. Money tends to bring out the worst in people - like greed, fraud and disguise. However you read the microgrants applications, don’t make the mistake of assessing the people personally based on how they write an application to get money from the OSMF.

If you’re going to fall back on “copyright law is long established”

I am not, as said valid moral arguments can be both made for and against copyright - both in general as well as in specific domains like databases. I would be willing to discuss that - not here and not in lieu of the discussion on behavior regulation though - but only if you are seriously interested in deriving decisions from the result of this discussion and not if it is purely an academic exercise.

I’m having trouble parsing this. 😖 Can you rephrase?

What you cited was an illustration. My main question was to you to point me to a single anti-discrimination law that regulates person-to-person interaction on equal level, i.e. not in a hierarchy (like between adults and kids and not between normal people and people with some official function or business operators etc.).

Various rape laws apply to people based on their age, or mental disabilities. Some anti-discrimination laws only apply “in one direction”.

Please be specific. We are talking about legislation that has the purpose to protect human rights according to the UDHR by sanctioning certain person-to-person communication only if it happens in a discriminating fashion but not in general.

Rory, i can completely accept if you don’t want to have a moral argument here but asking me to provide moral justification for arbitrary things feels a bit too much like being asked to jump through hoops just for your amusement. I already mentioned that the moral justification of copyright (and hence the use of copyright to impose and enforce a license) is a separate (and open ended) discussion. But this has absolutely no bearing on the matter of behavior regulation in social interaction and communication.

Data protecition law does prevent me from ”doing whatever I want with any data they contribute to OSM”.

No, as said it restricts what i may contribute to OSM, it does not further restrict what i can do with stuff that i may and do contribute to OSM.

Nearly all anti-discrimination law regulations behavior in person-to-person communication & actions.

I would be eager to see you point me to a single law that does so. As mentioned the AGG explicitly does not. Is there any legislation where i (as a private individual) am forbidden to treat you in a certain way because you are not a woman unless the way i treat you is forbidden per se also if i equally treat everyone this way?

Ah! If you can rely on the Berne Convention, then I’ll reply with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. QED. 🙂

Comparing the UDHR as the non-binding declaration of ideals to the Berne Convention as a concrete agreement on binding rules of course done not work.

I also don’t see how the UDHR stipulates behavior regulation of person-to-person communication on equal level beyond what is covered by criminal law typically like slander etc.

As i have pointed out in @imagico/diary/392072#comment46519 practical attempts at implementing the UDHR into law in some form beyond criminal law generally does not apply to person-to-person relationships on equal level. And as said there i would be very much in favor of the OSMF introducing practically meaningful non-discrimination requirements to organizations like itself or companies w.r.t. individual community members.

“Any mapper may do whatever they want with any data they contribute to OSM” doesn’t work with the EU’s Data Protection Directive (& Charter of Fundamental Rights). Can you justify throwing away these privacy rights? (other examples: military bases, copyright, family law report restrictions, defamation/libel, trade secrets)

I think your argument is flawed here. What you cite as moral/legal constraints limits what you may contribute to OSM in the first place, it does not restrict what you can do with data you may contribute to OSM.

I think this is a sidestepping the actual topic of behavior regulation quite a lot but i will indulge for a bit.

can you provide a justification for this rule?

First of all - i don’t have to. This is what the law says, at least in all countries accepting the Berne Convention. Independent of that the moral justification for a person’s right to freely use their own recordings of thoughts and observations in my eyes stems pretty fundamentally from our self image as literate persons. Denying people this right would essentially amount to denying them the right for literacy. Even if you’d question this as a fundamental human right it would be blatantly inconsequential to within OSM - which pretty much requires literacy and the ability to record thoughts and observations from a mapper - to deny them the right for this for their contributions.

Note this is not the same as the moral justification for copyright, which creates an exclusivity for using their own work for the creator. That is something people have different opinions on which you could indeed discuss from a moral perspective. But that is not what you asked and that would also for the most part not be relevant within the context of OSM since the OSM license does make only very limited use of this exclusivity in principle granted by the law.

Moral considerations regarding the data license are mostly concerned with the rights of the mapper attached to their contributions. That is fundamentally different from the moral implications of imposing codified rules on the communication and social interaction between people.

Also the data license also not in any way restrict the mapper in what they may do with their contributions - they are completely free to allow others to use them beyond the scope of the license.

Regarding the need to justify behavior regulation - as an OSMF board member you do not need to justify decisions on that for communication within the OSMF - that is a political decision and you have the mandate from the OSMF members for that. Applying such rules to the whole OSM community however is a different story.

I’m trying to parse this. If we have zero behavior regulation, if we have no floor, no bare minimum, then (for example) OSMers who persistently physically assault OSMers at SotM must not be banned from the project (right?).

I commented on that (the specific case of a physical meeting) at length i think back in 2018

If we have no bare minimum for the whole project, then everything is allowed, right?

If you regard ‘allowed’ as a legal term then no, everyone of us lives in a jurisdiction that permits and forbids certain behavior.

If you look at it from a moral perspective then the answer is equally no - unless you subscribe to a nihilistic view of ethics.

IMO it’s obvious that from a consequentialist view, we should have a global list of unacceptable behaviours.

One of the main problem with consequentialist approaches is that they are practically limited by your imperfection in predicting the consequences. To put it bluntly: If you are sufficiently ignorant you may be able to formulate behavior rules that are universally justifiable under a certain consequentialist framework. This is in particular a problem here because while you will likely be tempted to look only at the immediate consequences the rules you want to impose have, the communicative implications would reach much further than the actual rules. Or put more simply even: If you want to take a consequentialist evaluation of policy seriously you cannot only look at the intentional consequences, you also have to look at the unintentional ones - including those you might be too narrow minded to see. Otherwise you end up with the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Since we all have our limitations in predicting consequences, in particular in the context of a project as unique and unprecedented as OpenStreetMap, i don’t think a purely consequentialist view is practically useful here. Still i would be interested in hearing what specific rule of behavior (and how it is meant to be imposed practically) you would consider justifiable from a consequentialist view.

I often promote Codes of Conduct, and I’ll have a private, good faith conversation with any OSMer about that.

You know we have had such conversations - but as said before i have yet to hear any serious moral defense of universal behavior regulation within the OSM community. Since i suspect most conversations along these lines will end up with this as one of the major issues (as it has happened in our previous conversations) i suggest to consider this as a basis if you want to have another chat about it.

By the way i am thinking about what changes i should suggest FOSSGIS to request in the local chapter agreement now that this apparently is turning into a cherry picking competition. Or is that a case of quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi and all local chapters are equal but some are more equal than others?

Very interesting read, thanks.

While this is what i would classify as anecdotal observations of course it is a large volume of them and as such represents an interesting cross section of views from within the community.

Two observations about that

• It should be clear that this cross section is of course in no way representative for either the OSM community as a whole or the active OSMF members or some similar group of people. There is subjectivity in the selection of the people you talked to as well as selectivity in your perception of the conversation. That does not in any way devalue the communication and the ideas and opinions communicated but quantitative assessments in particular - like the ordering of priorities or statements like “Communities outside western Europe generally welcomed…” are of course to be interpreted with that in mind.
• While possibly not everyone will agree with that i think that decisions on matters like the ones you listed in the Top Lines require looking at the merits of the ideas presented and should not just be based on their popularity. In particular it is paramount to think through even very popular ideas beyond the point to which they have been considered by their proponents. For example the old story of “We live in a vast country and just don’t have enough volunteers so we need imports/automated AI mapping/paid mappers/…” is rarely thought through up to the point when it comes to the long term maintenance and updating of the information over decades by those who tell it.

On quite a few of your Top Lines by the way people (yes, including me - but this is not about me) have written down stuff on blogs, diaries and elsewhere that probably contains a lot of meaningful considerations much of which has likely not been in your records of conversations. In oral conversations - and also often in people’s recollection of such conversations - a fairly large focus is often put on what people want and if they are for or against something. But often IMO the more interesting part is the motivation and reasoning why people are in favor of or against a certain idea. This in my experience often becomes clearer when people invest the time and energy to formulate their ideas in writing.

I am happy to see that while during the planning of the F2F meeting it was a widespread opinion that meeting in person is without alternative you have now - after external factors have forced you to try an alternative - made the surprising experience that it works better than expected. This is an important and valuable insight IMO and demonstrates that keeping an open mind and trying out different options can be highly worthwhile.

With regards to the regular remote board meetings however I think you should also keep in mind that these currently serve multiple functions and moving to a different technical basis would affect these functions in different ways.

The main functions from my perspective are:

• deliberation on matters of the board among the board members. For that a larger bandwidth in communication certainly has some potential advantages - while it can also change the social balance within the group - to the better or worse, this is not something i can form a qualified opinion on in this case.
• communication to the OSM community/OSMF membership. For this a higher bandwidth can be also an advantage but a higher bandwidth requirement will also exclude a lot of people who cannot meet these bandwidth requirements. And the option to consume a low bandwidth subchannel (audio only) of a much larger bandwidth communication (assuming this option exists) is not the same as consuming the audio in an audio only communication.
• communication and two way exchange with the OSM community - in the past through the option for guests to ask questions and comment in the end of the meetings. On Mumble this has been a fully symmetric communication while with a video conference system this is either asymmetric (if the guest can participate only audio) or imposes a significant hurdle (if the guest for participating fully needs to be able and willing to share their visual environment).
• motivation and recruitment of potential future board members. The public board meeting are an important opportunity for people to get insights into how the board works and listening in on them has in the past been widely considered an important preparation for candidacy for the board. Having board meetings with video would communicate to potential future board members the additional requirements to (a) be willing to publicly show themselves on a regular basis in board meetings and (b) have the bandwidth in internet connection to do so.

Independent of that you also need to keep in mind the learning curve of a more complex communication system. Mumble is technically quite simple and there are compact instructions available in various languages specifically designed for OSM use. I could not find anything comparable for your suggested video conference system and everything i found was fairly complex and difficult to follow.

Long story short: You are making a choice here with potentially significant effects on communication including both intentional and non-intentional ones. Make sure you have broad awareness of them when making such decision. But on the other hand i applaud your efforts to try out new possibilities.

Do i see it right that there is only one Maxar image layer now although both iD and JOSM still provide separate entries for ‘Standard’ and ‘Premium’? iD seems to use different API keys for them but they are still the same, JOSM adds a ‘foo’ parameter but it does not seem to have an effect.

@apm-wa - i think we might be getting somewhere with your mentioning of the AGG. I already thought of this w.r.t. the UDHR but with the AGG it is much clearer.

The AGG in its scope of application only covers asymmetric relationships like employment, use of administrative services or companies providing public services or selling goods to the general public. It does not apply to person-to-person relationships on equal level. As a private individual i may follow the principle to only talk to men but not to women without violating the AGG. I may also live on the principle to only buy things in shops that are run by women if i want to.

If the OSMF board wants to create regulation that limits/forbids discrimination of individual community volunteers by OSMF institutions, by corporate actors in OSM or even by local chapters (over which otherwise the OSMF should not exercise any authority) i am all game and would actively help defending such measures against critical voices. Provided of course such regulation is designed in a consistent fashion and with a clear, well defined meaning independent of specific language formulations. Note this is not because such regulation would comply with my specific cultural values as the reference to the AGG might imply but because (a) it is clearly within the remit of the OSMF, (b) it is clearly in support of the OSM community’s basic goals and values (and not in conflict with them because those are only covering the individual-to-individual interaction) and (c) i think it is defensible from a standpoint of basic moral principles (although i would be open to arguments where it is not).

@rory - you asked about the meaning of discrimination by wealth. The clearest example for that is capitalism itself. Capitalism is discrimination by wealth in purity. In capitalism all major economic decisions are made by the owners of property and production ability (in other words: wealth) - the capitalist class. They also have the exclusive possibility to derive income from their property (profits and rents) without this reducing their property. OTOH the working class without any property have only their own working ability as capital and this does not provide them with the same powers. Where lies the source of the discrimination you might ask? It lies in the principle of capitalist societies declaring private property as sacrosanct and absolute.

Now OSM internally does not follow capitalist rules but capitalism and the discrimination by wealth it implies still has impact on the project. So for example in any business activity in the project. If a business owner (the capitalist) through their management for example instructs their employee to get active in OSM (as a software developer or mapper for example) they are using their capital (without reducing it, just through the profits and rents) to do that - something the non-capitalist community volunteer cannot do. That is inequality and the source of this is the discrimination by wealth inherent to capitalism.

Note i do not want to pass any moral judgement with that characterization - if capitalism or discrimination by wealth is something morally defensible or not is something people evidently have conflicting opinions on. I do not think it is helpful to discuss that here. What i wanted to point out is (a) that the declaration of non-discrimination as a universal value while explicitly excluding discrimination by wealth is inconsequential and (b) that neither including discrimination by wealth nor excluding it as an undesirable form of discrimination would have consensus within the OSM community.

@apm-wa

It appears we can agree that a diversity statement, this one, or any other, does not affect the organized editing guidelines, or the existing differentiation between volunteer and paid mappers. Those issues fall into the category of “how we map” and that is not in the Board’s remit. Let’s drop that subject and move on.

I don’t think we can since here we seem to have a fundamental conflict here.

If you think the diversity statement means something - like that it does not interfere with or supersede the traditional core values or the organized editing guidelines then you have to be able to demonstrate that based on the text of the statement. If you can’t do that you cannot expect others to read and interpret the statement the same way - hence it does not objectively mean what you think it means.

In my diary entry above i think i demonstrated based on the text various things the text communicates that i find highly problematic. I welcome anyone arguing with those findings and countering my reasoning. But i don’t accept a simple assurance of the text meaning X without X being demonstrated to derive from the text itself.

Well, I just looked at the draft Code of Conduct wiki page and noted it has been pending since 2010, and was last touched in 2018. That’s ten years waiting for a Code of Conduct to be adopted by the community. I don’t intend to wait ten years for a diversity statement to be adopted, or perhaps still have it in “draft”. The “OSM way” in that case hasn’t worked.

Oh boy, you could write a whole book about the history of that can of worms. I will summarize it in this form: The OSM way in that case has worked exactly as it should although a few loud English language voices wholeheartedly dislike the OSM way exactly because of that.

Independent of that - if there is an abandoned draft for something on the OSM wiki that is not an indication for anything.