On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 17:54:42 -0800, Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> wrote: > Vào lúc 17:24 2022-11-19, Matija Nalis đã viết: >> Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make >> sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would >> be proposal author (expecting that EVERYBODY will do that SAME task is both >> extremely wasteful, hugely unrealistic, >> and likely to lead to few participating members willing to do that becoming >> burned out prematurely). > > Practically speaking, no one can fully understand the discussion in > every community. That's a much higher bar than just announcing something.
That is true. But if not even the proponent is equipped/willing to do that, what are the chances that majority of wiki commenters/voters will be able/willing to do that? Surely even lower. > For example, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to alert OSM Japan > Slack about my next proposal, but my nonexistent Japanese skills would > be catastrophically inadequate to capture the sentiment there. It would > be better to candidly state upfront that I'm unable to respond to > individual comments there and direct interested mappers to the wiki talk > page, where hopefully others can engage as necessary. That is OK, when it is just read-only announcement, and interested people are pointed to go to wiki talk page and comment there. Problem arises when there is discussion on that extra channel and not on wiki talk page, and nobody forwards it to the proposal wiki talk page, so majority of people never know that there even was such a discussion, much less what was suggested. > All too often, a proposal announcement on this list ends with an > exhortation to comment on the wiki talk page, inevitably leading to a > long thread here instead. Where is the requirement to summarize the > tagging list thread, for the benefit of ordinary mappers who will be > voting but can't easily follow Mailman's deeply nested threads split > across monthly archives? I would recommend that proponent summarize mailing list discussion too, yes. (although it is arguably somewhat less important when it is only official communication channel, but it would become much more important if other official channel were added, as then there would be 50-50 [or whichever] chance that the voter did not follow "the other" channel) Related: I actually find rudimentary mailman web interface more usable than Discord for reading tagging proposals. It has nice and easy visual threading, and web browser automatically indicate read vs. unread articles (even if you did read them in logical, instead of chronological way!), and I can much easily open interesting messages in extra tab for later perusing (without them being mixed up). Also, I personally did not find the fact that every month I have to click few extra times to continue following thread that big an issue (especially considering all the work that *actual reading* of those dozens of messages each month pose by itself!) (of course, I still prefer news.gmane.io NNTP interface to mailman archive, but as mentioned previously, that is likely too arcane suggestion for new users born into wait-whatdoyoumean-internet-is-more-than-just-www generation :-) > After all, the proposal guidelines have never required _voters_ to subscribe > to the tagging list. And those who didn't follow ML suggestions (and when it wasn't summarized in wiki), invariably produced less useful input. Note that I find voting part of proposal actually unimportant in itself; that is, important only as it: - forces proponent to actually pay atention to the suggestions made earlier in the RFC - provides a final date for closure (i.e. discussion not dragging on endlessly) - weeds out proposals for things that nobody actually care enough even to come to vote yes > Maybe a better model would be for each community to take some of the > burden off the proposal and have one or more self-appointed liaisons > handle announcements and communicate the most salient ideas back to a > single source of truth (the wiki, or wherever we decide to hold votes in > the future). This would apply to the tagging list as well as the > community forum. That is a good idea! I've tried to suggest something similar with my co-proponent comments. The main issue there IMHO is that of "Bystander effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect I.e. unless someone is explicitely mentioned by name in the proposal as liason for some group (and of course accepts such responsibility!), it is quite likely that nobody would actually do it. And if they accept that obligation, they should be hold to their word; so my suggestion was to name them as co-proponents, even if their work would be mostly communication and not technical writing about the topic (even it is different kind of work, it is still very valuable and worthy of recognition there). -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
