[Tagging] An after-burner meta-discussion

[mail at marcos-martinez.net]

I am grateful somebody is daring to bring up a topic which seems to be a
huge elephant in the room. I say "dare" because it is a complex topic,
especially in a collaborative project such as OSM, for which the concept
of consensus should be of vital importance. Living proof is that in each
debate on this list, once opposing opinions emerge, the word consensus
is constantly used as supporting argument for one side as well as the
opposing one. It confirms what Steve states below: "... a fundamental
lack of understanding about what consensus really is". 

Probably most of us share the same notion about what the concept
represents ("some kind of agreement"?) but if we re not able to
translate this into the OSM universe this notion will remain sterile and
useless, a buzzword that doesn't mean anything. 

I also say "dare" because precisely due to the crucial character it
should have for us AND its complexity it can easily happen that this
debate quickly branches off in all kinds of directions, diluting what
this thread is meant to be: An intent to achieve consensus about what we
believe "consensus" actually represents in OSM. I don't mean at all to
censor any opinion but I 'd celebrate it if everyone participating tried
focus on THAT. 

There might be those who question the need for this at all: For me the
obvious answer is that no matter how scattered we are all over he world,
no matter how different the realities on the ground might be in all
those places, no matter what part of this reality we are interested in
mapping - if we want the ONE database we are all feeding knowledge with
to be more than just the sum of each individual node we need a place
where we can come together and be able to align on how to do it and how
to improve it. 

Marcos 

Am 14.02.2022 19:47, schrieb stevea:

> To be more clear:  what I am talking about here is how what is very often, good, spirited discussion, with good ideas, good technical direction and so on, simply gets ignored.  It does not "flow forward in the greater flow(chart) of consensus."  Instead, (perhaps because of sheer volume?) it gets "vented off like hot gas from an oilfield flare," completely wasted as it is ignored.
> 
> What is beginning to emerge as I discuss this more off-list with a number of people is this:  there seems to be a great disconnect in how people "implement consensus" on this list.  (In short, we really don't).  I think this stems from a fundamental lack of understanding about what consensus really is.  And that exasperates me with what feels like an overwhelming task.
> 
> I don't know how to solve this, but it does seem an important initial direction is for a much broader segment of our community to be participating in actual processes of consensus.  In my opinion, we have a long way to go in that regard.  I mean, for example, try reading Wikipedia's article on consensus [1 [1]] (which is OK, but only the tip of a big iceberg) and see how close that comes to how this list conducts itself.  These are a far, far distance from each other.
> 
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

Links:
------
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220215/43714738/attachment-0001.htm>