Richard, Frederik, Thank you for your replies. I will pick up on a couple of points.
You are right that in my day job, the people involved are more constant, and yes, those implementing the decisions do get paid for it. This does not mean that you have to adopt a different approach though - we recognise that things may change that means we have to review the decision. In OSM terms this could be a significant contributor leaving the project, or feedback from users that it is not working as expected, so we would re-visit the decision made. Also a lot of potential modifications that we consider need us to use very specialised personnel. The diversion of such 'critical resource' onto a particular project rather than other work is a significant part of the decision making process. The equivalent in OSM would be if there is a good idea, but no-one prepared to implement it, it would significantly affect the balance of pros and cons for that decision! On a more positive way of thinking, the fact that others think something is a good idea might encourage people to step up to implement it? Whether OSM needs processes for making decisions or should be a 'do-ocracy' is interesting. Certainly a 'do-ocracy' is the way it is bound to go for purely technical things....because those who are willing and able to implement the technical aspects are bound to have a very significant say in any technical decisions. However, softer things like tagging and (dare I say it) licence changes are not technical issues so a different approach is necessary. Whether to import data from other sources, or go out and survey is a one where 'do-ocracy' approach gets difficult - a technically capable person could write the programme to do the import, and just do it....but we know that could upset a lot of people, so a different way of deciding what to do is appropriate. [I know the tagging one is contentious - I don't want to start the debate here, but deciding whether to have a process for agreeing tags or not is probably a good candidate for any decision making process we adopt]. Thank you for the very civil replies! Regards Graham. On 11 June 2011 15:10, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Graham Jones wrote: > >> In my day job I look after quite a few decision > >> making processes to help our organisation make difficult > >> decisions. I always say that I will have failed if at the end > >> of the day we have to resort to a vote to decide what to do > > That's good. But also remember that in your day job, it is very > > likely that the people who have to live with a decision in half a > > year will be more or less the same who have made the discussion, > > give and take a bit. > > Indeed. > > Remember, too, that in your day job, the people who have to _carry_out_ the > decision will do so because they're paid to. We don't do that. We can have > all the processes we like, but they make no difference if we don't actually > have skilled volunteers who are both able and willing to implement the > decisions. > > That is why OSM is, and will remain, a do-ocracy. > > I'll let you into a secret. The real power in OSM _isn't_ Steve's secret > portal in his basement. Nor even Fake Steve's. It's here: > http://svn.openstreetmap.org/ [1] > > cheers > Richard > > [1] well, ok, git too these days ;) > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Join-the-OSMF-tp6461437p6465328.html > Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk