Key themes from my review of this thread:
- The policy should be clear in its language in distinguishing between desktop, in-browser, and mobile editors, and how this factors into consideration
- There is concern about whether this policy is specifically prompted by a consideration of whether to include RapiD and whether this proposed policy and that decision are comingled. Along these lines, there are concerns about whether to include editors which bring in importable external data sources more easily.
- There are different perspectives on whether to focus on quality (high bar to include an editor) versus diversity (include a larger number of editors for more varying use cases)
- An editor should have a privacy policy that’s acceptable to OSM community expectations
- There are concerns about whether it is acceptable to link the edit button to an externally-controlled website
- There is a desire for the community to be able to evaluate an editor for a period of time between when it is proposed and when it is approved, so that contributors can provide feedback to the OWG on a proposal to add an editor