@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).
@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".