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

[James Crawford]

On 7/7/23 16:59, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> 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.
All the public listings and posts were to get awareness about the issue, 
and gauge the real community opinion on changing a requirement like 
this. I bent the tagging proposal template to serve the goal of trying 
to get a better understanding of what the community thinks, not to try 
to cheat some existing rule. The vote was combined with announcements in 
other communication channels (slack, forum, this list, etc.) to try to 
get the fullest opinion reasonably possible by involved community 
members. I don't think the way the proposals template was used should be 
a nitpick focused upon, when the only purpose was to attempt to measure 
public view on an issue.
> 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.

Like I said before, the goal is to get the community's opinion on the 
use of the community forums over the mailing list for imports. I'd be 
happy to hear from anyone who didn't participate in the vote or in 
previous discussions.

Thanks,

--James