[Tagging] Changing proposal process rules - RFC

Justin Tracey j3tracey at gmail.com
Wed Jan 6 00:40:33 UTC 2021

On 2021-01-05 6:58 p.m., Seth Deegan wrote:
> Or why not just OSMF members?
>   * The Active Contributor Membership acts as a gateway and mapping days
>     of one OSM account are accounted for.

IMHO, the requirements for active contributor membership are too 
stringent for voting on proposals.

>   * Those who have a OSMF membership through a financial contribution
>     (and may not map much) already have a vote in OSMF itself (the
>     parent and way-more-important organization than tagging) and usually
>     are experienced members of the community.

No offense to the OSMF, but I'd dispute the claim that it's more 
important than tagging. OSMF could die and be revived, if need be -- 
heck, we already have some fairly independent organizations who could 
take on a lot of their role in an emergency. Adding poorly-planned tags 
to the map, on the other hand, can cause headaches that take years to undo.

>   * Members must be active yearly in order to maintain their membership.

I don't see why this is desirable for this case? It seems like it should 
be perfectly fine if you had, e.g., several hundred editing days in past 
years, but haven't been able to meet the threshold recently.

> Who can vote being dependent on mapping experience alone is quite limiting.

Agreed. Data consumers in particular should have as much of a say as 
mappers, since they're the ones actually making use of the tagging specs 
at the end of the day.

> Nomatter who is voting, everyone has the expectation of reading and 
> questioning the proposal.
> Every proposal should clarify what it is to do so that /anyone /can 
> understand it when they decide to vote, no matter their mapping, 
> tagging, or historical experience.

On a similar note, I think it should actually be a goal to incentivize 
newer mappers to participate. I've seen discussions get steamrolled by 
myopic, vocal perspectives (not maliciously, to be clear, just 
one-sided), and getting more participation from a wider set of 
contributors could be one way to mitigate that. Ironically enough, I do 
think that setting some explicit requirements for voting could actually 
help on this front, since it would convince mappers that they are the 
sort of person who should be participating. As I implied above, I'd 
rather err on the side of inclusiveness, but I think something like "30 
mapping days ever" could go a long way.

  - Justin

More information about the Tagging mailing list