[Tagging] An after-burner meta-discussion

[bkil]

I'd strongly suggest to reconsider the `WHO` part. I think opinions
should be weighted according to how much `skin` one has `in the game`.

I.e., if I am mapping something and I need to specify a property,
those should have less `say` about the final decision who never map
such things in the first place. Otherwise it usually ends with
bikeshedding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_shedding

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:02 PM <mail at marcos-martinez.net> wrote:
>
> I have seen many interesting approaches so far and I’ll address them in a later mail the first thing I’d like to mention is that as soon we are trying to set up a truly serious debate the most obvious shortcoming we have been suffering from is the lack of proper tools to debate. This dynamics of a mailing list is totally inadequate to handle what we are up to so thanks Zeke for reminding us about Discourse, we absolutely need to check this out. In the meantime, and knowing what our limitations are, we must therefore bee all the more cautious about how we are keeping this debate productive and solution oriented.
>
>
>
> Also, I hope we all agree that what we are debating here is not only valid for mere tagging issues but for other broader OSM topics which the community is interested in, too.
>
>
>
> Let my now try to expose a few basic thoughts. I am aware that they are extremely basic and probably even too obvious but at times it might be good to speak them out loud so it is easier for everybody to see how aligned we are and put the next stepping stones.
>
>
>
> 1. Consensus is about people communicating. To establish consensus it needs at least two people sharing their views.
>
>
>
> - The above implies for me that those who for whatever reason do NOT enter the debate are not part of the consensus. Being a project with literally millions of contributors, which I believe we all consider part of the broader OSM community, and only a tiny fraction of those willing to engage in debate beyond pure mapping, we need to think about how to handle this and what it implies when taking decisions.
>
> - We need to reflect about the conditions
>
> WHO is allowed join the debate (this should be straight forward: basically everyone who wishes to)
>
> WHERE the debate takes place (in our case with participants from all over the world this is linked to platform, software) for the consensus to be valid
>
> WHEN consensus can be defined/redefined (Start and end dates, duration, etc.)
>
> HOW debates have to be conducted and the rules that we think are best to channel it.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Consensus needs to be QUANTIFIABLE in some way.
>
>
>
> - I know there is also this notion that with a good consensus at the end everybody should agree but honestly, I don’t see this happening in the OSM community, nor do I think it is necessary. Unanimity is desirable but we need to have proper processes in place for when this is not the case.
>
> - Being the above correct, for me this means that whatever type of quantification we chose (votes, emojis, humming, you name it…) this needs to be comprehensible, verifiable and transparent.
>
>
>
> 3. Consensus (in OSM context) and what comes next
>
>
>
> - We need to establish what EFFECTS it has (or not) after a debate is over and the outcome is quantified.
>
>
>
> Probably all of the points deserve a thread of its own but for now it may be enough to not mix arguments across points.
>
> Marcos
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging