Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Rihards Olups

@simon @zverik
That sort of makes OSM[F] reactionary, stripping it from proactive projects.
Which sort of vibes with "supports not controls" approach, at least partially.

But OSMF potentially could explore more active stance (taking care of becoming dependent of sponsors).

Oh, BTW, perhaps the great OSM community developers can be polite one to another - even negative views can be expressed in ways that don't leave the other person much worse off ;)

8 comments
Simon Poole

@richlv @zverik the thing is, funds are in reality not unlimited, so there has to be choices.

Sure the OSMF could move to a centralized development model, but if wikipedia is anything to go by then we would then just have one and a half editors.

As is we have a competitive market place in which everything goes. That has the advantage that there is more choice and the disadvantage that the majority of devs are working on their own dime (or whatever they are able to scavenge from 3rd parties).

Rihards Olups

@simon @zverik
Yeah, and OSMF supporting some editors (or projects in other categories) would likely kill others in that space.

And I say this still being sad that OWL disappeared, had wished to see it on osm.org.

Perhaps OSMF could act more as a facilitator, helping to connect developers with potential grant sources, having some templates for applications and the process?
It would reduce the risk of favoritism, help the devs and keep OSMF at "supports not controls".

Simon Poole replied to Rihards

@richlv @zverik OWL never really worked, and the last dev that worked on it tried to use it as leverage to get employed by the OSMF ... which as we know, failed.

A full blown replacement for it is probably out of the financial reach of the OSMF and it isn't even clear if that approach still makes any sense.

Ilya Zverev replied to Simon

@simon @richlv Regarding OWL, yeah, I made WhoDidIt which basically replaced it, and then Wille made OSMCha that got supported by Mapbox and basically fully covers the standard low-level changes monitoring.

I wouldn't say they used it as a leverage... Or I don't remember it all too well. It definitely was too early for that.

Ilya Zverev

@simon @richlv Currently I see the choice is between all or nothing: if we can't fund everything, we'll allow developers go at their own pace with their own money.

I heard this Wikimedia thing repeated so often, I started doubting that it's either-or proposition.

And pretty sure OSM is far from a competitive market. If we count every single attempt at making an editor, we will hardly get to a hundred. There are 27 editors with 30+ users _in_a_year_, OSMF could start supporting them all easily.

Ilya Zverev replied to Ilya

@simon @richlv (not that I'm suggesting that making editors is more important than other, non-IT things)

Simon Poole replied to Ilya

@zverik @richlv it isn't even the only IT thing and I would argue that money spent improving the website would have a lot more impact (not to mention that a substantial part of what is actually spent is ops).

Ilya Zverev replied to Simon

@simon @richlv Well, this now goes into "just do anything" narrative I've been pushing for OSMF for years :) Yes, website update is long overdue. It still broadcasts a wrong message about OpenStreetMap, and omits many things people are searching for.

Go Up