(English translation below)
Halo rekan-rekan Komunitas OSM Indonesia.
Akhirnya tim Data Working Group (DWG) mampir ke akun saya. Namun, penjelasan mereka mengenai “I will comment on some of those explaining what the problems are” menurut saya cukup mengada-ada. Faktanya, DWG hanya mengomentari 3 changeset yang saya lihat justru sebagai pengalihan dari akar masalah utama.
Berdasarkan pengalaman saya, rate-limit pada 27 April lalu berkaitan dengan penambahan name:id di Jepang. Di situlah akar masalahnya. Mengenai saran mereka untuk berdiskusi di forum; faktanya pada 20 April saya sudah menulis artikel di Forum (Localizing place names (name:id) in Japan and the Koreas) dan bahkan di Diary (FajrAl's Diary | Lokalisasi name:id untuk Jepang, Korea Selatan, dan Korea Utara | OpenStreetMap). Saya sudah berinisiatif lebih dulu.
Dalam merespons pesan tersebut, di salah satu komentar changeset, saya menyampaikan:
“Regarding the complaints, I am more than happy to engage with other users in the changeset comments to clarify my edits. However, I feel that a 0-hour block (as a warning mark) might be a bit premature given my willingness to communicate.”
(Indonesia) “Mengenai keluhan tersebut, saya dengan senang hati berinteraksi dengan pengguna di komentar changeset untuk memperjelas hasil edit saya. Namun, saya merasa bahwa blok 0 jam (sebagai tanda peringatan) mungkin terlalu dini mengingat kesediaan saya untuk berkomunikasi.”
Ini hal yang sangat saya sayangkan. Seharusnya, DWG mengarahkan para pelapor untuk berkomentar langsung pada changeset yang dipertanyakan agar terjadi diskusi sebelum kemudian diekskalasi; seperti prosedur yang biasanya dijalankan DWG. Namun, kali ini DWG langsung menanggapi laporan tanpa memfasilitasi komunikasi ke saya terlebih dahulu.
Pemberian 0-hour block yang dibarengi pertanyaan pada 3 changeset yang aneh tersebut menurut saya hanyalah bentuk pembenaran semu, bukan penilaian yang adil atas kesediaan saya untuk bekerja sama. Sebagai mapper yang selalu aktif berdiskusi, saya sangat menyayangkan tindakan DWG yang gegabah ini. Ini hanyalah bentuk kritik kecil atas prosedur yang dijalankan, jadi saya tidak diperlukan tanggapan, namun saya dengan senang hati membaca masukan apa pun yang mungkin Anda berikan.
Salam,
FajrAl
(English)
Hello fellow members of the OSM community (Indonesia especially). The Data Working Group (DWG) has recently reached out to my account. However, I find their explanation—“I will comment on some of those explaining what the problems are”—to be quite far-fetched. In reality, the DWG only commented on three changesets, which I perceive as a diversion from the actual root of the issue.
Based on my experience, the rate-limit I encountered on April 27 was related to the addition of name:id tags in Japan. That is where the core issue lies. Regarding their suggestion to discuss these matters on the forum, the fact is that I had already proactively initiated a discussion on April 20 through a forum post (Localizing place names (name:id) in Japan and the Koreas) and a personal Diary entry (FajrAl's Diary | Lokalisasi name:id untuk Jepang, Korea Selatan, dan Korea Utara | OpenStreetMap). I took the initiative well before this intervention.
In response to their message, I stated in one of the changeset comments:
“Regarding the complaints, I am more than happy to engage with other users in the changeset comments to clarify my edits. However, I feel that a 0-hour block (as a warning mark) might be a bit premature given my willingness to communicate.”
This situation is deeply regrettable. Ideally, the DWG should direct complainants to comment directly on the contested changesets to facilitate discussion before escalating the matter—as is their standard procedure. However, in this instance, the DWG acted on reports without facilitating any prior communication with me.
Issuing a 0-hour block while simultaneously questioning only three obscure specific changesets feels like a post-hoc justification rather than a fair assessment of my willingness to cooperate. As a mapper who consistently engages in discussion, I find the DWG’s hasty decision to issue a warning mark very unfortunate. This is intended solely as a small critique of the procedures followed; therefore, no response is necessary, but I am happy to read any feedback you might provide.
Best regards,
FajrAl