[Tagging] An after-burner meta-discussion

Tue Feb 15 23:33:41 UTC 2022

The big problem though with the various suggestions raised ^, that rely on
moderators / admins etc to "control" discussions, is who does it all, & how?

We are a worldwide volunteer group, so amongst any possible lack of desire
/ enthusiasm to take the role on, you then also have the added problems of
time zones & languages to contend with.

Thanks

Graeme

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 at 02:49, Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to encourage everyone who hasn't to read about the IETF's process
> on working toward consensus that stevea and others have linked to:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282
>
> The IETF process specifically addresses most of the challenges we've
> encountered here, including how to work toward viable paths forward when
> those participating are only a small fraction of those affected, "ballot
> stuffing", and actual consensus versus capitulation among others. While the
> global and asynchronous nature of OSM precludes some of the precise
> in-person techniques used in IETF working groups, I feel that we'd do well
> to stand on their shoulders and leverage their well-tested process with
> modifications to make it practical to our context.
>
> As David notes, the IETF has a formal role for a "chair" of a working
> group that is critical to the process by moderating discussion and ensuring
> that valid technical arguments get addressed even in the future absence of
> those who originally raised them. Getting our own "chair" role
> volunteered/selected/trained for each tagging proposal might not be easy,
> but shouldn't be insurmountable. Chairs have a duty to the process rather
> than the outcome, requiring work and engagement, but not necessarily
> particular expertise on the topic/tagging at hand. I'd hope that anyone who
> volunteers to "chair" a particular proposal/working group would step back
> and take that neutral moderation role seriously -- and weigh in with gusto
> on *other* proposals that they aren't chairing.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:50 AM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:36 AM David Marchal via Tagging <
>> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The french OSM community recently changed its forum software for a
>>> Discourse instance, which allow such interactions. Could this help the
>>> debates? I think so.
>>>
>>
>> For anyone who isn't already aware, a Discourse
>> <https://www.discourse.org/> instance is being set up at
>> community.openstreetmap.org to serve the global OSM community.  The
>> instance currently running there is for testing and the data will be
>> deleted before the official launch, but everyone should feel free to
>> explore the platform to see how it works.  You sign in with your main
>> osm.org account.  It looks like the Operations Team is working through some
>> technical issues
>> <https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/377#issuecomment-979917530>
>> that need to be resolved before launch.  The Discourse motto is "Civilized
>> discussion for your community" and I am hopeful that this platform can help
>> move things in that direction when it launches.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:02 AM bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This would surely not apply to every page in the wiki, but only under
>>> a designated prefix used just for those discussions where no consensus
>>> could be achieved in the past.
>>>
>>> We could also create an improved JavaScript based mediawiki
>>> editor/viewer to do this consistently as well.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:54 PM David Marchal via Tagging
>>> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm afraid that we can't expect all editors to respect this
>>> discipline: there will always be people which will not read/pay
>>> attention/care. Would your system still work if many contributors don't
>>> respect these rules?
>>> >
>>> > Regards.
>>> >
>>> > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>> >
>>> > ------- Original Message -------
>>> >
>>> > bkil <bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com> schrieb am Dienstag, 15. Februar 2022 um
>>> 15:41:
>>> >
>>> > > Friendica supports likes & dislikes. But you could simulate this on
>>> > >
>>> > > mediawiki as well with a little discipline:
>>> > >
>>> > > -   factor each atomic (usually a few sentences) thought into a
>>> separate
>>> > >
>>> > >     subsection
>>> > > -   open a like & dislike paragraph after each subsection where
>>> reacting
>>> > >
>>> > >     people could add their name
>>> > >
>>> > >     On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:31 PM David Marchal via Tagging
>>> > >
>>> > >     tagging at openstreetmap.org wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > AFAIK, the "thank" action only notifies the author; one could see
>>> that as an attaboy: the thanked person knows that someone liked his/her
>>> edit, but that's all. Hardly a reputation system…
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > ------- Original Message -------
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com schrieb am Dienstag,
>>> 15. Februar 2022 um 12:46:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Am Di., 15. Feb. 2022 um 11:37 Uhr schrieb David Marchal via
>>> Tagging tagging at openstreetmap.org:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I simply wanted to add that the "humming" might be achieve with
>>> the Emoji system I talked about: the contributor/chair/moderator wanting a
>>> hum on a point asks a question and tell "React with 👍 or 👎 (or with 1 to
>>> 5 ⭐, ⭐ meaning you strongly disagree, ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ meaning that you strongly
>>> agree) to see where we can try to lead this debate". The RFC you pointed
>>> gives sound advice about how to manage this result.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Some time ago, I proposed to add a simple rating system for wiki
>>> edits (thumbs up / thumbs down), so that consensus with edits could be
>>> measured and authors could gain or loose reputation. Later a system was
>>> implemented which allows to thank the author of a wiki edit. Unfortunately,
>>> as stats are not visible (you cannot see how many thanks an authors has
>>> received, neither in total nor for a specific edit, nor does it seem the
>>> authors themselves are notified, or maybe nobody ever thanked me), and as
>>> there is still no way to express dissent with an edit (apart from
>>> discussing it and or reverting it), it currently does not seem to do
>>> anything.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/44271
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Cheers,
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Martin
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Tagging mailing list
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> > > >
>>> > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> > >
>>> > > Tagging mailing list
>>> > >
>>> > > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> > >
>>> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Tagging mailing list
>>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220216/5650660e/attachment.htm>