[Tagging] improve the proposal procedure

[Marc_marc]

Le 20.10.22 à 15:53, Casper Kersten a écrit :
> @Marc_marc
> 
> - limit to 1 simultaneous proposal per person?
> 
> I oppose this idea. Sometimes people just have plenty of free time and 
> good ideas and use this to make and share proposals. I see no reason to 
> hinder them.

not to hinder them but to smooth them out.
if you have time to write 100 rfc today and put them to the vote
in 14 days, alas that is not why the community has time to review
those 100 rfc.
what other way is there to improve quality?


> - limit this to active contributor status in the osmf sense?
> 
> I strongly oppose this. The OSMF does not control OSM and it should stay 
> that way. If people want to improve OSM without having to get directly 
> involved with the OSMF I see no reason to hinder them.

what's do you mean with control ?
I wasn't talking about asking for control by the osmf, I was just 
talking about using the same criteria of active contributors
to avoiding sock-people like last week : if you never map, if you
aren't an active contributor to the osm project, your proposal
I find it hard to believe that this can lead to a sensible proposal.

> - encourage the use of the "resolved" tag in the talk page to see 
> visually if the points have been addressed or not?
> 
> I support this idea, but I would not make it mandatory. Sometimes 
> proposals are good enough, and not all issues can reasonably be resolved.

it is not forbidden to mark a point such as "I have read but won't fix" 
if you consider the issue irrelevant, but this will mark that the author 
feels he has finished discussing this issue

> - limit the scope of proposal ?
> 
> I see no reason to do so. Recently the Belariusian community agreed to a 
> big change in how languages are tagged. What alternative platform for 
> discussing and voting on this would you offer them?

for me, it's a very limited proposal, well done : one affected tag in 
one area.
or look at today's vote on evaporators: we vote also on lit=* among
other things. is it really necessary to include this in the proposal?
a focus on what is actually proposed in an RFC would be useful