пт, 21 окт. 2022 г., 2:37 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > These people could use their free time to make one successful proposals > instead of five unsuccessful ones that waste everyone's time because > they are half-hearted. >
Most of the rejected proposals are good written, but fundamentally broken. The OSMF should not be involved but the OSMF's definition of an "active > contributor" could nonetheless be used. It would make it less likely to > get proposals from people who don't map and therefore are unlikely to be > able to make a good proposal. > I am has been an active contributor in the past, but currently do not map, and not an "active contributor" in formal sense. I am unlikely to be able to make a good proposal? Keep in mind that the proposal process isn't a one-way street. It can > only work as long as for every one proposal there are dozens of people > who can read and constructively participate in the development of the > proposal. The capacity for new proposals is limited. > I am agree with clause that capacity is limited, but limit are known? For example, minimal RFC stage may be raised to 30 days, if it is necessary. "As do I, but I get a bit concerned when RFCs / proposals are raised for discussions that are still going on e.g. the recent very involved discussions re fountains / drinking-water / water-taps, when in-depth conversations were still proceeding over multiple threads, but there are actual proposals being raised" My apologies. This proposal has been withdrawn very quickly.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
