[Tagging] An after-burner meta-discussion

[stevea]

Look, everyone:  I don't believe I'm throwing a Molotov cocktail of revolution into OSM as I say this, but the discussion that happens in these mail-lists is not and seldom if ever results in "consensus."  Consensus itself, the real deal, is a fairly elaborate, sometimes messy process, it can be difficult to define and teach to others unless it is being genuinely executed so others can see it and learn by example.  Consensus involves hearing about the issues (all of them, if known), it involves opportunities to examine what might be objectively (often technically) "better" as opposed to what is convenient or preferred (those can and should get a fair hearing, but often expressly fade away in the face of "better").  We really don't do that here.  I admire (and strive myself to achieve) the "good harmony" that I see in these lists (most of the time, until it sometimes devolves into rancor) I think that helps OSM and nudges us forward, but it can't be called consensus.  There is no "consensus facilitator" (though there is a moderator watching, that's not the same thing).

In the mail-list expression of what OSM calls "consensus," we have either an extremely weak or non-existent version of consensus.  I can only conclude that the leaders of OSM (who do their best to "keep the wheels on" as they moderate and "keep peace") trot out a fig leaf called consensus.  What they mean by doing this (with all good intentions, and I deeply thank them for those) is to foster agreement.  Sometimes we get that, but it isn't by consensus.  Honestly, I don't think we CAN "do" consensus (the real version) in mail-lists, at least not with radical modification to our processes in how we use these lists, and that simply "ain't gonna happen" in any foreseeable future (of mine).

I completed my "Certificate of Completion" in OSM's new Discourse server, and while I agree it is a better communication medium for OSM's purposes (it has more bells and whistles where I think we need them), it STILL isn't going to implement "consensus."  Yet it is improvement, so I applaud and await its rollout with anticipation.

I see at least a couple of things emerging here:  one is that while "consensus" remains an important pillar of OSM (it is something we trot out at least somewhat frequently), it isn't (very often, if ever) truly implemented as it is meant to exist as a particular methodology of "decision facilitation."  And so, those (here in this thread, elsewhere in OSM...) who wish to learn more about what consensus is, and "bring it back more faithfully into OSM" have an uphill road ahead of them.  I don't wish to dissuade anyone, as I consider being true to the tenets of our project to be highly honorable work.  However, please don't be shocked to discover the huge distance between what is meant by consensus and how little of it actually takes place (here, in mail-lists, as well as in the greater world of OSM).

Why did I start this thread?  The above few paragraphs are the real reason.  It could turn into a prairie fire of effort to what many might consider a valiant attempt to "right the ship" and "consensus" (the real deal, as not only a concept or a fig-leaf) becomes a more-frequently implemented methodology in OSM.  I don't hold my breath, but I do offer encouragement in the face of what many might consider a cold slap in the face of "hey, OSM doesn't really DO consensus (very often), what we do instead is talk about it, and around it, like it's an ideal for us to achieve, but it is NOT what is implemented here."

Kevin is right on so many fronts.  One, "consensus is not unanimity," is a frequently misunderstood tenet about what consensus is:  it goes to show how much people don't really know about it.  I apologize if it seems like I'm "drubbing people with their ignorance" here, that is not my intention.  But I do urge all to learn what you can about consensus and see how different it is from what takes place in OSM's mail-lists.  Kevin is also right that when we map, and map well, (despite disagreements in tagging, many of them relatively minor, several of them still difficult sticking points) a lot of this  discussion about "how we achieve harmony, whether or not by consensus" is "noise in the distance," and doesn't matter (much) for people who can "get things done" with OSM.  Because as we do that, the "good work do-ers who combine good data with good intention and get good results," OSM wins; all of us in OSM win.

I know that's a lot to keep in mind "all at once," but I felt compelled to type all that here and now.  Thank you for reading.