[Imports] The place where imports are required to post reviews has changed.- or an april fool ?

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

>
> Having said all that, as far as the DWG is concerned, we expect any import
> to go through a suitable review process. We certainly won't immediately
> fault somebody for continuing to use the imports list provided that a
> suitable review process can be achieved there. Nor would we fault somebody
> for doing their review process on the forum. Nor does going through a
> review process ensure that the import will not have to be reverted later!
> The main purpose of the review is to iron out obvious problems, and given
> enough eyeballs this can happen on either medium.


Sounds like a reasonable take that reflects the reality of a human-centered
project where we make decisions based on community consensus and generally
being reasonable people rather than creating bureaucratic processes. The
purpose of wiki proposals are to define what goes on the wiki, and as of
July 2023, a recommendation that importers socialize their proposed imports
on the community forums is sensible advice to place on the wiki.

While wiki votes are not perfect, they can serve as a litmus test to
understand whether vocal objectors might represent a meaningful community
faction or an outlier. The 50 contributors who voted on this proposal are a
tiny fraction of the "OSM Community." However, it's quite a robust
participation compared to most wiki votes and a very healthy number
compared to the small pool of contributors regularly involved in online
community discussions. It's nothing to scoff at.

That said, if anyone feels that their voice wasn't heard and/or that this
proposal hasn't had a sufficient review, I would 100% support anyone who
wishes to pose a revised timeline for more substantial review and
consideration, including from the DWG or any dissenter. I don't speak for
James, of course, but as he is one of the more prolific importers in the
United States (with strong community support for his efforts to map Florida
land cover), I suspect he would also welcome additional participation to
further study, refine, and document best practices for importing as
we understand them in 2023.

-Brian
(These are my personal views and don't reflect the position of OSM US)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20230707/290eca0f/attachment.htm>