gravitystorm left a comment (openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website#6543)
When I read the PR I felt it didn't quite hit the spot in a way that I found
hard to articulate, but let me try.
Firstly, the roadmap has a much wider scope than just this project, because it
covers "core software" in general and not just the stuff we maintain here. This
can be confusing if someone reads the roadmap and thinks that any particular
problem mentioned there is therefore related to this project (e.g. osmdbt). So
this difference in scope should be made clear in this PR.
The proposed documentation in this PR is also slightly confusing when it
mentions "the project". At first it seems to refer to openstreetmap-website,
but then it makes more sense in places for it to mean the wider "OpenStreetMap
project" when referring to the roadmap, because "we" (as developers of this
project) certainly didn't propose changes or features for other projects!
The roadmap also contains a completely different definition of Developer
Experience than what we use here. In the roadmap, it's all about developers
using the OSM data and building things on top of that (hence discussion of
switch2osm, welcome mat, extract formats etc) whereas for us, Developer
Experience is about making it easier for people to contribute to this codebase,
e.g. installing dependencies, writing code, running tests. This again can be
confusing when the roadmap is read in terms of openstreetmap-website, instead
of core openstreetmap software in more general terms.
Overall the roadmap feels more like a description of what OSMF wants to focus
on, both to indicate what they intend to work on and to manage expectations of
what they won't be working on. Which makes complete sense, and with paid staff
it's better to have a rough plan! Thankfully the bits that are relevant to this
project are (mostly) aligned with what I want to see too (I'll let other
maintainers/developers chime in if they feel differently).
However, both the roadmap and this PR have the issue that it really sounds like
if it's not on the roadmap, you have to make a suggestion to have it considered
for being added. That's fine if you expect the OSMF team to focus on your
topic, but that's really not the case for contributing to this repo. If a
contributor comes along out of the blue with an entirely different feature
that's useful and meets our general criteria, but that feature is not even
hinted at in the roadmap, I don't want them to feel they need to persuade
anyone to add it to the roadmap, instead of just adding the feature directly
here as normal. All four paragraphs of this PR are phrased in a way that
discourages contributions that don't align with the roadmap, but the roadmap is
to set expectations of what other people are working on, and not meant to
discourage any other non-roadmap contributions.
Wow, that was more words than I intended. But to sum up - yes, I think it's
reasonable to link to the roadmap, but let's figure out a better way to phrase
things and add a bit more clarity to exactly how it relates to this project.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/6543#issuecomment-3558468843
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID:
<openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/6543/[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
rails-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/rails-dev
