[docs] Add Core Values doc #9905
14
docs/FOSS_POLICY.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
|||
# Free and Open Source Policy
|
||||
|
||||
The complete Organic Maps project codebase and all associated tools, documents and resources are released using [FSF or OSI approved](https://spdx.org/licenses/) FOSS licenses[^1]. OM doesn't require contributors to assign their copyrights, so that its much harder to take over the project and change to a proprietary license.
|
||||
|
||||
All data comes from open sources[^2] (e.g. map data is based on OpenStreetMap).
|
||||
|
||||
We strive to use FOSS tools and platfroms for collaboration when possible. There are some notable exceptions, e.g. Github (https://github.com/organicmaps/organicmaps/issues/7059). Contributors are free to use whatever individual tools they're used to (e.g. proprietary IDEs).
|
||||
|
||||
The development process is open: e.g. a full commit history is available in repositories, all Github PRs and issues are open and we strive to conduct as much discussions in public as possible.
|
||||
|
||||
[^1]: At the moment non-F-Droid Android builds of OM contain a proprietary Google Play Services Location library, which possibly could be replaced by a FOSS implementation in the future (see #9916).
|
||||
Please let us know if you spot any other non-free bits.
|
||||
|
||||
[^2]: The data file associating OSM hotel POIs with Kayak listings is courtesy of Kayak.com.
|
||||
12
docs/PRIVACY_POLICY.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
|
|||
# Privacy Policy
|
||||
|
||||
The Organic Maps project doesn't collect personal identifying information and doesn't track its users.
|
||||
|
||||
Personal information might be collected only when a user chooses so, e.g. crash reports are sent to OM developers for users who opted-in to be beta-testers.
|
||||
Organic Maps might collect anonymous usage statistics in a privacy-preserving way. These stats couldn't possibly be used to identify or track a user. We'll disclose all such cases.
|
||||
|
||||
All personal information is also reasonably protected by default from third parties.
|
||||
There are additional options for sensitive users to further enhance protection by sacrificing some convenience / ease of use (e.g. disable search history).
|
||||
Please keep in mind there are technical limits on what protection OM could possibly offer, e.g. usually phone's system software is controlled by its vendor and there could be firmware bits controlled by hardware manufacturers.
|
||||
|
||||
The project might explore various monetization options, but all of them should be done in a such way as to preserve privacy, honor, dignity, and respect for users.
|
||||
17
docs/VALUES.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
|||
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
# Core Values
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
Shared by a broader community of the Organic Maps project developers and users.
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- **Free and Open Source**
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
<br>The complete codebase and associated resources are released under Free and Open Source Software licenses and development happens in an open and transparent way. Refer to the [policy](FOSS_POLICY.md) for details and minor exceptions.
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- **Privacy**
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
<br>No personal information is collected by default. And we make a reasonable effort to protect it from third parties. Check the [Privacy Policy][PRIVACY_POLICY.md] for details.
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- **Community**
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
<br>The project is based on a broad community of volunteer contributors be it developers or donors or users answering each others questions and promoting OM to friends. And we're proud to be a part of a bigger OpenStreetMap community.
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
<br>The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and strives to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- **Core qualities of user-facing Organic Maps apps:**
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- Easy to use
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- Offline-centric
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- OpenStreetMap integration
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- Fast and light on resources
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
- Respectful
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
<br>privacy by default, no annoying ads, no agressive monetization
|
||||
|
pastk
commented
Personally I'd like it to be Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..
pastk
commented
I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here. I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
Its WIP.
rtsisyk
commented
Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section. Thanks for creating this. Please allow me to share the initial founding document back from Jan 2021 that definitely covered this section.
rtsisyk
commented
Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later. PrinciplesWe want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent. Allowed:
Not Allowed:
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles. Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later. Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter, drafted in the early Jan and shared with all newcomers via Google Drive as early as on Jan 18, 2021. The "No MIT yet" folks probably missed it. The lingua franca in that initial group wasn't English, so below is ChatGPT translated version (can be slightly wrong). I will share the original doc later.
# Principles
We want to continue developing the project as an open-source initiative under the Apache 2.0 license. In the context of the fork, we are removing the requirement for transferring all rights to the code to the "owners" (i.e., Mail.Ru Group -> Daegu Limited). Instead, we will retain all rights to the code with the developers and require licensing under Apache 2.0. This change is intended to simplify community involvement in the project and make it practically impossible to re-license and/or "close" the project without the authors' consent.
The open development approach does not exclude the possibility that we will monetize the app in the future in various ways while maintaining honor, dignity, and respect for users.
## Allowed:
- Donations.
- Expanding user capabilities for a fee.
- Selling various tours and guides.
- Subscriptions for something useful to the user.
- Partner integrations in relevant areas—booking, taxis, tours, guides, etc.
- Highlighting objects on the map.
## Not Allowed:
- Intrusive advertising for the sake of advertising—full-screen banners, overlaying the map with banners, irrelevant AdWords.
- Disabling existing features to move them to a paid version.
- Any deliberate degradation of UX and user experience.
- Blatant scams.
Everything else falls into a gray area—discussed jointly with the team and decided upon based on how it aligns with our moral and ethical principles.
-----------------------
Please don't scream about Kayak again - it wasn't seen as an issue at that time, but we can adjust based on the current vision, four years later.
rtsisyk
commented
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document. > . Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents." but at the moment we're far from being there..
Please don't stretch it too far. The data management requires more comprehensive policy, where the TOC alone will be on 5 pages. Let's focus on the values and leave the security compliance for another document.
rtsisyk
commented
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right. > I'm planning to link to a detailed privacy disclosure document from here.
> Its WIP.
I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first. The current one is a joke, even if it is right.
rtsisyk
commented
I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too. I, personally, want to highlight that the development activities should be performed using public channels, just to kill this endless Telegram DM story. We have GitHub and it works well. There was Slack and it also worked well. Yes, I know that we don't like Salesforce today, but Zulip is probably a viable alternative too.
pastk
commented
Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc. The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and to conduct as much discussion in public as possible." is short and good enough? Yeap this is about development-related discussions, not compliance etc.
The current version "The project endeavours to have little hierarchy in its governance and **to conduct as much discussion in public as possible.**" is short and good enough?
pastk
commented
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure. > I would start with the actual legally right privacy policy first.
Sure! But its likely to be two related but different documents: a legal privacy policy and a detailed technical disclosure.
pastk
commented
Thanks for sharing this! > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
Thanks for sharing this!
I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
rtsisyk
commented
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here. > > Hey, here is an entire section from the original project charter
>
> Thanks for sharing this! I'll think how to best integrate points from there into the Core Values and other docs!
Yeah, the original doc wasn't bad. Let's try to cover one issue in one document. Values here.
oleg-rswll
commented
By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers. By doing this process here, this limits contribution to primarily developers, and excludes non-developers.
pastk
commented
@oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better? I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats. @oleg-rswll do you have a suggestion how to make it better?
I thought first it would be better to make a draft based mostly on input from contributors. Once its shaped I planned to make wider announcements in user chats.
oleg-rswll
commented
A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general). A document on a platform where more people can contribute - where more people have accounts, or where an account may not be required, and easier to engage for a non-technical user base, would help include more people. An example can be Google Docs as an option for this purpose (although I do not endorse Google in general).
pastk
commented
Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values Ok let's try it :) https://board.net/p/Organic_Maps_Values
pastk
commented
Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons? Are all our resource files under FOSS licenses indeed? E.g. all icons?
@rtsisyk
pastk
commented
Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features? Does it conflict with a possibility to have paid features?
Maybe it should be rephrased?
@rtsisyk WDYT?
rtsisyk
commented
Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable Free as in beer is a bit too aggressive to be sustainable
pastk
commented
Ok, I've removed it for now. Ok, I've removed it for now.
|
||||
Personally I'd like it to be
"All communication channels and documents are public. Private data (names, bank account number, etc.) and credentials (passwords, etc.) are the only data stored in a private space and redacted from documents."
but at the moment we're far from being there..