Nice project ! I added a link to it in the wiki.

Merci pour ces améliorations !

Thank you for this, and the detailed readme explaining all the checks !

Nice work ! I wasn’t aware of this Special Comittee, but I’m glad it exists and creating those useful recommendations.

Thank you for this analysis !

Thank you for this nice project and big undertaking !

Merci pour ce sacré boulot !

Merci pour ce rapport complet !

Pour avoir plus de visibilité pour le projet GéoDataMine je t’invite à l’ajouter sur la forge logicielle du projet

Si tu veux j’ai un compte Framagit, je peux relayer l’info moi sinon.

That’s convenient to allow only agreement to be shared, and to label disagreement labeled as trolling. I’ll answer anyway, those who want to label this as trolling may do so.

In other words, pre-publishing the survey is not an accepted practice.

And yet :

@cquest I’ve added that link, thanks.

So I think asking for review would have been beneficial, but I’m far from an expert on surveying.

Bashing me publicly in my diary constitutes trolling, period

You’re right, that diary is published with your name attached. But as it’s one of the first public communication of this release, I think it’s unfair to call it a “personal diary” and forbid contributors to comment on it. Maybe next time such releases could be posted first to a “neutral” platforms such as recommended by @RicoElectrico. That will solve some of the issues raised here.

Answering publicly help deduplicate comments. Asking every contributor noticing an issue to send a private email sound pretty inefficient comparing to posting in a public medium, and may not help the recipient to not feel attacked. I think receiving and answering 5, 10, 20 messages regarding the same issue would be tiresome/aggravating.

Originally the (constructive) criticism was targeted on the survey and related communications, not you. Only after passive-aggressive attacks like calling people “unsophisticated” and “trolls” it had shifted onto you personnaly and became out-of-line.

I think that “publicly calling people out” (again, you were originally not targeted) becomes necessary on global-reaching endeavour such as this survey and voices asking to include the community are ignored, as I shared in my previous comment. What other avenue do you suggest? Staying silent? I think we should listen to each other in order to move forward.

Really thoughtful and complete analysis, thank you imagico !

Yeah I agree, calling disagreeing voices “trolls” is inflammatory and unneeded.

Some people asked in osm-talk to share the survey draft before sharing the definitive version. maybe those issues regarding privacy could have been spotted earlier, and these comments avoided ? I think it should be considered for future surveys.

Anyway, even with those issues, thank you for organizing such a survey, that amount to a lot of work !

Sad to see you go…

Take care !

Merci pour ce récit !

Congrats !

Salut, il manque aussi le tag recycling_type=container sur le thème MapContrib pour indiquer que ce sont des silos (par oppositions à des déchetteries)

Thank you for your contributions TheDutchMan13, take care !

Merci pour cette analyse !

J’ai fait une passe sur Lyon il y a quelques temps pour corriger recycling:glass en recycling:glass_bottles, il y a aussi une quête StreetComplete là-dessus, mais oui ça continue cette problématique. J’essaierais de les corriger de nouveau.

While I don’t like pointing one individual in particular, that was also my (to be fair not very researched) sentiment @westnordost.

What has been said to and about Frederik was a very large overreaction and looked like a power grab under sexist and racist pretense.

Hi Nicolas, thank you for this thorough analysis and commentary of the situation !

I agree wholheartedly with all the points you raised.

Éric

Thank you Logan for those explanations and the well wishes. I hope the same for your the people around you.

I agree fully about being watchful of corporate organizations getting additional power in OSM leadership.

Regarding tying seats on the board to nationality :

Board seat candidacy on OSMF are open to anyone as far as I am aware, and voters are at liberty of voting for their candidate of choice without external influence. If that’s not the case, that must (and have been in the past) investigated and acted upon.

Regarding voters, voters would have to have paid a yearly fee, that may restrict the pool of voters to “richer” countries. That was not the case for this election, and surely will stay the same for future elections.

The only problem I see is people with less income may not have as much time available to OSM, restricting their achievements in OSM. I understand that there economic inequality between countries, but the same can be said inside “richer” countries. Education has the same bias, poor people will on average have less access to education. Is is a poverty problem, not a coutry-of-residence problem.

And this problem seems way out of bounds of what a few OSMF Board seats may address.

Another problem is the language barrier : an english-speaking candidate will have an adventage over a non-english-speaking candidate. I’m not sure but I think most OSMF Board communication happens over email, so having using a translation service seems to close that gap.

Therefore the question that remains for me is : if the board election process is close to being totally fair, why is there a disparity between social groups in candidacy ? And in votes ?

What’s stopping heavily invested candidates to even propose their candidacy ? And what’s stopping (or discouraging) voters to vote for those if their contribution is recognized by their peers around the world ?