[OSM-talk] Voting

[Frederik Ramm]

Sven,

> I can't remember that ULFL ever claimed that.

Ok. There we go again. Nobody has claimed anything, but the fact of the 
matter is that a number of people seem to think that those who vote make 
a decision that is "a decision of the project" rather than "a decision 
of those five people who voted".

I've been critcised for not suggesting an alternative. So here's my 
suggestion:

* Continue your discussion and voting as before

* Give yourselves a name ("OSM Tagging Task Force" or whatever) and 
create a mailing list.

* Do not talk about "approved", "rejected", or "deprecated" features; 
instead, if something is voted in favour, it becomes a "recommended by 
OSMTTF" feature.

* Be very clear that any feature *not* voted upon, or any feature which
got less votes than something else, or any feature that a majority of 
voters didn't like, is still perfectly valid to use - you just don't 
actively recommend it.

* Never try to keep people from using tags you didn't recommend (i.e. do 
not add a big message to the Wiki saying "THIS FEATURE IS NOT 
RECOMMENDED!").

* Be very clear that the group you form is a small subset of the 
project; you create recommendations based on today's knowledge and on 
what you like and dislike. There may be any number of *other* groups in 
the project who also create recommendations and who have the same right 
to exist that you have. You are not special, the project has not asked 
you to please give recommendations, and has not given you any special 
powers that others don't have. (Much as the project never asks anyone to 
please write software and be the project's premier software contributor 
- anyone can do it and if it proves to be good, it is used.)

* Be very clear that your recommendations create no obligations 
whatsoever on the part of renderers and editors; your tags are not 
better or more important than anyone else's.

Do all this and I will stop complaining. I might even actively refer 
people to you ("better talk this over with the guys on the tagging task 
force list, they usually have good ideas" or so).

> Will this discussion only end when Ulf, Robin, me and several others set 
> up a separate wiki for those who want to agree on and use a consistent 
> tagging sheme because they believe it's a good thing? When this project 
> is so open, why are we always blamed for what we do?

I'll draw a parallel to the licensing debate here. Over on legal-talk, I 
constantly advocate PD, saying that nothing can ever be more "free" than 
PD because it has no restrictions. I am then routinely criticised by 
share-alike advocates who say that the freedom of PD might be abused by 
people further down the line to actually *reduce* freedom.

In this discussion, I find myself on their side: Our project is so open, 
and I have the impression that you are trying to *reduce* that openness 
by setting up a voting process. I have the suspicion that in the end you 
want a project where new tags aren't even allowed unless they underwent 
discussion and voting. And that's where my fierce opposition comes from.

Bye
Frederik