OSM Term Renewal Requests Modification

[AmyStephen]

In the thread entitled "OSM Term Renewal Requests" most of the public messages contain a Google Groups note that the content was edited on Feb 20 by Marijke Stuivenberg.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... 7ELHRiXMOc

In order to prevent unnecessary speculation or suspicion, it would be helpful if the reason for this change was shared.

It's understood that private information incorrectly shared should be "scrubbed" from the public record. In the future, it might be worthwhile to establish a practice of notating the reason for change with email edits.

Absent that type of need, an alternative would be to simply add a follow-up post defining the error and correction while leaving the original emails of record in tact.

It could be worthwhile for the board to standardize this practice for the future.

Thanks!

[JacquesR]

Those who are subscribed to that OSM list would be able to see, and confirm (from their own email copies), that Marijke did not edit the content of any emails or "scrub[bed] from the public record" any information.

That edit note that Google added to everything in that thread, was most likely due to her correcting the typo in the Subject of the original message thread afterwards, from "OSM Term Renewaln Requests" to "OSM Term Renewal Requests"

(she mentioned changing the typo, that's why I recall)

---
Jacques

[AmyStephen]

There are several unchanged emails, too, all with the same title, so I don't think that was the edit -- unless each made that change, too. Hence, the request an edit message be left -- it removes doubt. =)

My guess was it was the date in Alice's email. There was an edit made on the 13th by Marijke - the day of Alice's email and then the 20th for those who copied the email. Again, a little edit message would be handy.

As a point of clarification, I meant no offense by the phrase "scrub from public record." From time to time, personal or non-public data is committed to a github repository, so, a process to remove it completely are needed. That was the point of reference.

Thanks.

[JacquesR]

Amy, no text was changed. I know that because I can compare the emails online (just checked 2 of them), and the copy I get in email from my subscription to that list.

Quoting from the copy I received via my email subscription to that list, Alice wrote:
"This call for term renewals will end on Friday, February 21st."
In the on-line post reads:
"This call for term renewals will end on Friday, February 21st."

The two emails that do not show the Google edit note are the two emails that did not quote the first email in their reply.

As explained (comparing the emails and knowing that the Subject typo was corrected), I state again that no "personal or no-public" data was edited or changed, and neither was there any other type of change, other then the typo correction in the Subject line of the first email.
That single Subject edit caused the strange result.

Hopefully this removes the need for further "speculation or suspicion" about this on twitter.

---
Jacques

[AmyStephen]

Well, Jacques, the copy sent to those subscribed came on the 20th, the day of the edit. The actual emails are dated prior to that time. I am guessing that the emails that were edited were actually sent to the private OSM email list and reposted to the public list.

That would account for the late delivery, the different dates in the header, and the edit message. But, I'm guessing since I don't know which is why I am asking.

And you are right, no one needs to speculate on Twitter. OSM is willing to answer questions. So, people should just ask. And here I am asking. =)

There is no hurry. If someone who knows the answer would kindly answer when they have time, it would be appreciated. If the question is not considered appropriate, just ignore it. I'll get the hint.

Thanks!

Note: When I say "that were edited" I mean those emails that are noted as "Edited" by Google Groups.