Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
I would like to contribute to this discussion my, maybe subjective, impression that we have an inflation of proposals. Many of them are interesting, others look less so. In any case, personally I have de facto stopped contributing to these proposals for simple lack of time. I also would like to add that too much wiki "gardening" is going on below the radar of most contributors. My impression is that we are running the real risk that we are adding too much tiny bits of information and are losing out on the core part our project, i.e. data collection for making maps. Adding continously many tiny bits of information means that we are losing out on maintaining and improving our core data. We simply do not have the manpower. I am a near daily mapper, mostly regarding cycling related information, and I am often surprised, how easy it is to encounter bad or missing information in our data base. I consider cycling-related data particularly important, as it is a sector where OSM is leading over the competition, as most cycling-related route-planning sites and most bicycle navigation devices use OSM data. Volker On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, 02:41 Illia Marchenko, wrote: > > > пт, 21 окт. 2022 г., 2:37 Frederik Ramm : > >> These people could use their free time to make one successful proposals >> instead of five unsuccessful ones that waste everyone's time because >> they are half-hearted. >> > > Most of the rejected proposals are good written, but fundamentally broken. > > The OSMF should not be involved but the OSMF's definition of an "active >> contributor" could nonetheless be used. It would make it less likely to >> get proposals from people who don't map and therefore are unlikely to be >> able to make a good proposal. >> > > I am has been an active contributor in the past, but currently do not map, > and not an "active contributor" in formal sense. I am unlikely to be able > to make a good proposal? > > Keep in mind that the proposal process isn't a one-way street. It can >> only work as long as for every one proposal there are dozens of people >> who can read and constructively participate in the development of the >> proposal. The capacity for new proposals is limited. >> > > I am agree with clause that capacity is limited, but limit are known? For > example, minimal RFC stage may be raised to 30 days, if it is necessary. > > "As do I, but I get a bit concerned when RFCs / proposals are raised for > discussions that are still going on e.g. the recent very involved > discussions re fountains / drinking-water / water-taps, when in-depth > conversations were still proceeding over multiple threads, but there are > actual proposals being raised" > > My apologies. This proposal has been withdrawn very quickly. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
пт, 21 окт. 2022 г., 2:37 Frederik Ramm : > These people could use their free time to make one successful proposals > instead of five unsuccessful ones that waste everyone's time because > they are half-hearted. > Most of the rejected proposals are good written, but fundamentally broken. The OSMF should not be involved but the OSMF's definition of an "active > contributor" could nonetheless be used. It would make it less likely to > get proposals from people who don't map and therefore are unlikely to be > able to make a good proposal. > I am has been an active contributor in the past, but currently do not map, and not an "active contributor" in formal sense. I am unlikely to be able to make a good proposal? Keep in mind that the proposal process isn't a one-way street. It can > only work as long as for every one proposal there are dozens of people > who can read and constructively participate in the development of the > proposal. The capacity for new proposals is limited. > I am agree with clause that capacity is limited, but limit are known? For example, minimal RFC stage may be raised to 30 days, if it is necessary. "As do I, but I get a bit concerned when RFCs / proposals are raised for discussions that are still going on e.g. the recent very involved discussions re fountains / drinking-water / water-taps, when in-depth conversations were still proceeding over multiple threads, but there are actual proposals being raised" My apologies. This proposal has been withdrawn very quickly. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 at 23:58, Casper Kersten wrote > All this said, I do appreciate good quality proposals and constructive > discussions. I'm happy with all these creative proposals that are being put > forward. > As do I, but I get a bit concerned when RFCs / proposals are raised for discussions that are still going on e.g. the recent very involved discussions re fountains / drinking-water / water-taps, when in-depth conversations were still proceeding over multiple threads, but there are actual proposals being raised. Of a similar concern is people going in & altering the wiki while discussions are going on :-( Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
Hi, On 10/20/22 15:53, Casper Kersten wrote: @Marc_marc - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? I oppose this idea. Sometimes people just have plenty of free time and good ideas and use this to make and share proposals. I see no reason to hinder them. These people could use their free time to make one successful proposals instead of five unsuccessful ones that waste everyone's time because they are half-hearted. I like the idea. - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? I strongly oppose this. The OSMF does not control OSM and it should stay that way. If people want to improve OSM without having to get directly involved with the OSMF I see no reason to hinder them. The OSMF should not be involved but the OSMF's definition of an "active contributor" could nonetheless be used. It would make it less likely to get proposals from people who don't map and therefore are unlikely to be able to make a good proposal. All this said, I do appreciate good quality proposals and constructive discussions. I'm happy with all these creative proposals that are being put forward. OSM isn't finished yet, after all. Keep in mind that the proposal process isn't a one-way street. It can only work as long as for every one proposal there are dozens of people who can read and constructively participate in the development of the proposal. The capacity for new proposals is limited. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 23:07 Marc_marc : > I wasn't talking about asking for control by the osmf, I was just > talking about using the same criteria of active contributors > to avoiding sock-people like last week : if you never map, if you > aren't an active contributor to the osm project, your proposal > I find it hard to believe that this can lead to a sensible proposal. > http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?Something%20B I am sock-people? > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
Le 20.10.22 à 15:53, Casper Kersten a écrit : @Marc_marc - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? I oppose this idea. Sometimes people just have plenty of free time and good ideas and use this to make and share proposals. I see no reason to hinder them. not to hinder them but to smooth them out. if you have time to write 100 rfc today and put them to the vote in 14 days, alas that is not why the community has time to review those 100 rfc. what other way is there to improve quality? - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? I strongly oppose this. The OSMF does not control OSM and it should stay that way. If people want to improve OSM without having to get directly involved with the OSMF I see no reason to hinder them. what's do you mean with control ? I wasn't talking about asking for control by the osmf, I was just talking about using the same criteria of active contributors to avoiding sock-people like last week : if you never map, if you aren't an active contributor to the osm project, your proposal I find it hard to believe that this can lead to a sensible proposal. - encourage the use of the "resolved" tag in the talk page to see visually if the points have been addressed or not? I support this idea, but I would not make it mandatory. Sometimes proposals are good enough, and not all issues can reasonably be resolved. it is not forbidden to mark a point such as "I have read but won't fix" if you consider the issue irrelevant, but this will mark that the author feels he has finished discussing this issue - limit the scope of proposal ? I see no reason to do so. Recently the Belariusian community agreed to a big change in how languages are tagged. What alternative platform for discussing and voting on this would you offer them? for me, it's a very limited proposal, well done : one affected tag in one area. or look at today's vote on evaporators: we vote also on lit=* among other things. is it really necessary to include this in the proposal? a focus on what is actually proposed in an RFC would be useful ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
Le 20.10.22 à 14:59, Illia Marchenko a écrit : I think that additional restrictions are unnecessary, unless proper reason. If the reason was not clear enough, i rephrase it : if you open RFCs to close them in less than 12 hours, it's a worry for the time of the others who started to read the proposals. making a proposal is not a sprint, you have to aim for quality, not quantity. If there are peaks of "too many" RFCs followed by tiptop votes on the 14th day because one or more contributors have a peak of free time, this does not create a peak of free time for the others, so the community will deal with the RFCs as best it can... and for the rest, we will end up with no votes because we sprinted instead of aiming at quality. I have the impression that doing an RFC has become a goal in itself to put on a CV, there are even profiles of people listing their RFC on their profile page, including those who have messed up, I find this a big concern that's why I think it's useful to try to smooth out these peaks a bit... there's no reason why you can't write RFCs, even 100 per day off if you want to, that's not why you have to vote on everything tiptop 14 days after your holiday ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 15:44 Peter Elderson : > Proposing and voting should not be hard, so you always get some lesser > quality stuff. > For example, I will accept any constructive feedback for my proposal. But "it is lesser quality stuff" is very subjective. Any proposal are either good or bad. If some proposal are bad, simply write about it - here, on its Wiki talk page, somewhere. Regards, Illia. > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
@Marc_marc - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? I oppose this idea. Sometimes people just have plenty of free time and good ideas and use this to make and share proposals. I see no reason to hinder them. - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? I strongly oppose this. The OSMF does not control OSM and it should stay that way. If people want to improve OSM without having to get directly involved with the OSMF I see no reason to hinder them. - encourage the use of the "resolved" tag in the talk page to see visually if the points have been addressed or not? I support this idea, but I would not make it mandatory. Sometimes proposals are good enough, and not all issues can reasonably be resolved. - improve the wording for the 14 day minimum time limit which is too often understood lately as "pfff 14 days to wait" ? Suggestions for this can be put forward on the Talk page of the "Proposal process" Wiki page. - limit the scope of proposal ? I see no reason to do so. Recently the Belariusian community agreed to a big change in how languages are tagged. What alternative platform for discussing and voting on this would you offer them? All this said, I do appreciate good quality proposals and constructive discussions. I'm happy with all these creative proposals that are being put forward. OSM isn't finished yet, after all. Op do 20 okt. 2022 om 15:06 schreef Illia Marchenko < illiamarchenk...@gmail.com>: > I think that additional restrictions are unnecessary, unless proper reason. > > чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 15:44 Peter Elderson : > >> I agree that it got a little out of hand, but there were some good >> proposals and votes as well. >> Proposing and voting should not be hard, so you always get some lesser >> quality stuff. >> >> Let's not throw away the baby with the wash water. >> >> Peter Elderson >> >> >> Op do 20 okt. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Marc_marc : >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> the past few weeks have been stormy for proposals: >>> - people opening 4 or more RFCs to collect opinions >>> - RFCs or votes that open and close in less than 12 hours >>> - Proposals that go to vote on the 14th day, even though >>> this is the minimum time limit and the problems in progress >>> have sometimes not been resolved. >>> - nominees to make even more simultaneous proposals >>> without showing that it is just one person >>> >>> How could we improve this ? >>> - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? >>> - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? >>> - encourage the use of the "resolved" tag in the talk page >>> to see visually if the points have been addressed or not? >>> - improve the wording for the 14 day minimum time limit which >>> is too often understood lately as "pfff 14 days to wait" ? >>> - limit the scope of proposal ? >>> - any other ideas? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Marc >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
I think that additional restrictions are unnecessary, unless proper reason. чт, 20 окт. 2022 г., 15:44 Peter Elderson : > I agree that it got a little out of hand, but there were some good > proposals and votes as well. > Proposing and voting should not be hard, so you always get some lesser > quality stuff. > > Let's not throw away the baby with the wash water. > > Peter Elderson > > > Op do 20 okt. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Marc_marc : > >> Hello, >> >> the past few weeks have been stormy for proposals: >> - people opening 4 or more RFCs to collect opinions >> - RFCs or votes that open and close in less than 12 hours >> - Proposals that go to vote on the 14th day, even though >> this is the minimum time limit and the problems in progress >> have sometimes not been resolved. >> - nominees to make even more simultaneous proposals >> without showing that it is just one person >> >> How could we improve this ? >> - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? >> - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? >> - encourage the use of the "resolved" tag in the talk page >> to see visually if the points have been addressed or not? >> - improve the wording for the 14 day minimum time limit which >> is too often understood lately as "pfff 14 days to wait" ? >> - limit the scope of proposal ? >> - any other ideas? >> >> Regards, >> Marc >> >> >> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] improve the proposal procedure
I agree that it got a little out of hand, but there were some good proposals and votes as well. Proposing and voting should not be hard, so you always get some lesser quality stuff. Let's not throw away the baby with the wash water. Peter Elderson Op do 20 okt. 2022 om 14:28 schreef Marc_marc : > Hello, > > the past few weeks have been stormy for proposals: > - people opening 4 or more RFCs to collect opinions > - RFCs or votes that open and close in less than 12 hours > - Proposals that go to vote on the 14th day, even though > this is the minimum time limit and the problems in progress > have sometimes not been resolved. > - nominees to make even more simultaneous proposals > without showing that it is just one person > > How could we improve this ? > - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person? > - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense? > - encourage the use of the "resolved" tag in the talk page > to see visually if the points have been addressed or not? > - improve the wording for the 14 day minimum time limit which > is too often understood lately as "pfff 14 days to wait" ? > - limit the scope of proposal ? > - any other ideas? > > Regards, > Marc > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
