[OSM-talk] Map features discussion & voting

[Mike Collinson]

At 10:45 AM 11/06/2007, Tom Chance wrote:

>Hullo,
>
>Thanks to Alex for going through lots of the old proposed map features, that page needs some management.
>
>Unfortunately I think the process is massively failing right now. Lots of the emails Alex has sent indicate decisions on the basis of three or four "votes" - three or four people in a mapping community of over 700, on the basis of very little discussion. I really think there ought to be a bare minimum, like 15 votes with a 75% majority, before something can be accepted. For some proposals there also needs to be a lot more discussion; an additional amenity may be quite obvious, but Ben's waterway proposal on the stream page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Stream) is much more complicated and should change the way people enter waterways.
>
>How can we stimulate more discussion of proposed features, more awareness of upcoming votes, a better means of determining if a particular vote warrants an approved/rejected decision, and more awareness of big changes when they come through?
>
>One idea I have, but alas really wouldn't be reliable enough to keep up, would be to produce a weekly newsletter that's sent out to all user accounts (perhaps with an opt-out), or this list. The letter would detail new proposed features, recently hot discussions, upcoming votes and accepted/rejected decisions.
>
>What do others think?

On the whole I think the "informally formal" process is working reasonably well, though like you I'd certainly like to see at least a slightly higher level of participation.  The standard features list is coherent and growing.  The wiki proposal pages get plenty of hits. As a proposer of several tags, I'm reasonably happy that I'm getting practical, thoughtful feedback from fellow contributors, that my less sensible proposals get shot down and that the good ones make it through in reasonable time as long as I personally take the time to "promote" my proposal.

Yes, a decision based only three or four votes is small but if I have just one other person who will take the time to tell me that the way I've been experimentally tagging things is either flawed or utterly brilliant :-) that is very useful.  Three or four people responding positively suggests that the experimenter's corner is giving its thumbs up to encouraging wider use.  Bear in mind that no one actually has to use the tags once  "accepted".  Having tags that do similar things in different ways can be good.  I for one feel there is role for both qualitative measures like river/stream or imprecise measures of population that are easy to contribute and useful for general mapping and precise metrics such as river widths and depths that are needed for specialist communities.

Ten or twenty approvals would indicate a broader acceptance/interest and demonstrate a higher democratic participation.

How to get?  From experience, I suggest most of the onus should be on the proposer and that the mailing list should be used more to nag folks into going and voting (I am assuming that most folks not on the mailing list are more interested in mapping using the existing tools and environment rather than participating in change).

1) Promote as well as create proposals.

2) Take the time to make even a tiny wiki page describing your proposal in addition to putting an entry the main proposals page.  Don't forget to come back to it and do things like add a voting section or rework your proposal after feedback.

3) When you've made a proposal, write a succinct summary of your proposal to the mailing list and give a convenient URL link to your wiki entry.  Follow this up periodically, for example to move to voting.

4) Be clear exactly what you are proposing and pose it in specific terms than then a vague concept. That makes it easier for people to agree/disagree. You can always change if feedback is negative.

5) If your proposal involves more than one tag or value, consider breaking it up into more than one cross-referenced proposals. I might agree to part and not to another and be discouraged from voting. 

One last comment.  In a later part of this discussion thread, Peter Miller points out that some current Proposed Features seem to be stuck because they have a wide impact on the Model or the tools.  Point 5 may help with some of these but I do agree that the process can fall down here.

Mike
Stockholm