[Tagging] Changing proposal process rules - RFC
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.
More information about the Tagging