[Strategic] Too many lists?

[Mikel Maron]

Hi

I agree there are too many lists ... it's become too hard to connect to other mappers. 
But I don't think the answer is to remove them, rather rearchitect how we communicate.

I wrote up some sketchy ideas:
http://brainoff.com/weblog/2012/03/30/1773

 
-Mikel

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


>________________________________
> From: Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>
>To: Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> 
>Cc: strategic at openstreetmap.org; moderators at openstreetmap.org 
>Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 2:00 AM
>Subject: Re: [Strategic] Too many lists?
> 
>Hi Richard,
>
>I think it is okay to have country specific lists.
>
>Sure the tagging shouldn't be country specific, but there are meet-ups
>and other things that are specific to areas. I think enough people
>subscribe to those lists to keep people aware of tagging situations
>and that there is for example a tagging list.
>
>Otherwise should all lists be by language? I think there would be
>disagreement in having all the Spanish or French language lists
>together as well.
>
>There is going to be some level of regionalization no matter what and
>I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. To go academic geographer
>for a moment we can think of Tobler's First law (1) "Everything is
>related to everything else, but near things are more related than
>distant things." Maybe talk-ca and talk-us have more in common than
>talk-au for example.
>
>-Kate
>
>(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobler's_first_law_of_geography
>
>On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:
>> I suggest that we have too many English, general purpose lists.  I
>> think that we could easily roll talk-ca@, talk-us@ and talk-au@ into
>> talk@ without harming any of those communities.  None of the country
>> lists have enough traffic to cause a problem by overwhelming talk@
>>
>> On the other hand, I think that the three country lists harm the
>> overall community by allowing Balkanization of community, tagging and
>> mapping.  I think that there is too little to distinguish the
>> communities to require distinct lists, and allowing the groups to
>> splinter and diverge is harmful.  As an example, it is better to have
>> cycle-mappers in US be aware of cycle mapping challenges in AU and CA,
>> rather than to believe that a unique US tagging scheme is required.
>>
>> It might also be reasonable to roll the talk-gb and talk-ie etc, lists
>> back into talk@ as well, but I have no history with those lists.
>>
>> In short, lists should be created based on demand, and then collapsed
>> when the demand abates.  It's time to move en-talk back to talk.
>>
>> Just my thoughts.  How about you?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Strategic mailing list
>> Strategic at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/strategic
>
>_______________________________________________
>moderators mailing list
>moderators at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/moderators
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/attachments/20120716/a0ae8163/attachment.html>