[Tagging] Changing proposal process rules - RFC

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Jan 7 04:55:03 UTC 2021

It's normal that sometimes things will only be obvious when reading the
proposal again before voting, even if someone has commented before.

I am quite active on the wiki and usually read all proposals when they are
drafted and again when they are formally proposed with a RFC, and often
comment. But sometimes the proposal changes significantly after the RFC,
and I haven't read all of the new comments. Or another user points out a
serious problem which isn't addressed.

Since many proposals are drafted but never move to a vote, I tend to assume
that poorly-written proposals will just be abandoned. This is often true:
compare the number of proposals in each status right now:

1) Draft status (334) - see
- mostly abandoned
2) Abandoned or canceled status (605) + (34)
3) Proposed status (207)
4) Approved (295)
5) rejected (112)

So there are near 1100 proposals which never moved forward versus only a
little over 400 which were approved or rejected: almost 3 out of 4 are
never brought to a vote. This makes it sensible to not spend too much time
discussing a proposal unless the author seems serious and well organized.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 8:25 PM Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner at gmx.at> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:55:40 +1000
> Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 05:23, Lukas Richert <lrichert at posteo.de> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This seems to be my current problem - half of commentors want
> everything
> > > quantified and described precisely. The other half now say it is
> > > "overworked" and too long. And the comments only come up during voting
> > > when I'm not supposed to change anything in the proposal anymore.
> >
> >
> > Yep! :-(
> >
> > The Proposal Process page currently says that for voting "*At this point
> > there must be only one proposal on the page, which should not be changed
> > anymore, so it's clear what is being voted on*."
> >
> > Maybe we need to modify this a bit: "Comments may only be made during
> RFC.
> > Once a proposal goes to voting, it is final" & then enforce it by
> > dis-allowing no votes that haven't raised comments, or asked questions,
> > earlier?
> I am quite guilty of what you describe but I think this is actually a
> symptom of lack of visibility.
> > > Overall, I too would be in favour of having a vote-by-email system
> that
> > > is sent out to all frequent mappers. Thus, many more mappers might
> > > become involved in thinking about tagging as a whole.
> Note that promoting (the start) of votes only without also dramatically
> increasing the awareness of drafts/RFCs would likely increase the
> problem mentioned in the first paragraph, i.e., that comments are only
> raised at voting because people look at the proposal for the first time
> at this point. I think this is actually a symptom of having too little
> feedback during the pre-vote phase. A sufficiently scrutinized proposal
> should not have such problems.
> --
> Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210106/e8b3bcd3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list