[OSM-talk] Move tagging RfCs/voting to extra list?

[Ulf Lamping]

Frederik Ramm schrieb:
> Hi
>> Simply move the proposal stuff into a different list without this  
>> posting is probably a very bad move, since this tends to become the  
>> "elitist circle" that most people want to avoid (including myself).
>>     
> I don't consider the whole voting business "elitist". I'd say it is
> one (of many) possible approaches and everyone who wants to use this
> process can participate in the mailing list. The process should not be
> forced onto all readers of talk.
>   
Well, as I said, it *could become* elitist if it's split out to a 
seperate list - and no one on talk not subscribed to 
"proposals at openstreetmap.org" even notices what's going on.
>> So is someone really willing to do the extra work to collect the "voting  
>> issues" posting weekly? I'm personally not, Robin maybe?
>>     
> If someone would do that then the extra mailing list could perhaps be
> dropped, with discussion taking place on the Wiki and one
> "digest"-type mail per week on talk. If, however, nobody wants to do
> the work, then an extra list is all the more important to make talk
> readable again! You can't flood talk with all these messages and then
> say this has to be so because nobody wants to write digests...?
>   
Well, if nobody wants to write digests, then IMHO it's just not a good 
idea to move to a seperate mailing list.
>> If we find someone, who is doing the above job we might start with this  
>> summary posting in talk, in addition to the current postings and see how  
>> it works out.
>>     
> No, pleae not *in addition*, talk is difficult to follow as it is!
>   
Well, one additional mail per week is probably not a problem on talk.

I just want to be sure to have a mechanism tried out and working before 
we take action to split the lists.


I perfectly understand that the amount of proposal/RFC/voting mail 
traffic is big on an even otherwise huge mailing list - and I perfectly 
agree that some action is a good idea here.

However, simply "banning" this stuff from talk ASAP just because you and 
some others might not be interested in - without thinking how it could 
seamlessly work in the future?

Regards, ULFL