> Question is: did you then collect all the points those extra communities made > (both those you agreed with, and those > that you didn't agree with), and summarized them on wiki /talk page, for > extra period of RFC? Because if you didn't > (especially if you didn't include things you _disagreed_ with) then you > abused that input to promote your personal view, > and disregarded the best parts that such other views could provide. > The proposal has a section "external discussion". There the largest external discussions are listed. These are all publicly accessible sources so people can read what has been discussed there. I have also send updates when I changed major things in the proposal. I can image if you announce it on a closed platform like Discord, that a summary on the talk page can be useful.
> I can imagine quite bad things, but to be fair, here is a most realistic one > instead: On each changing of status quo, > some people will leave the process for good, as that will be the straw that > broke the camel's back. If you need to > learn from history, see the debate when OSM changed license from CC-BY-SA to > ODbL. And then, if another proposal > changes situation back to what it was before, that will NOT cause (majority > of) people that left to come back. > It will instead cause some MORE people to leave for good (in revolt). > There are always people who don't agree with a change. EVERY proposal or changes has that. If more then 75% of the people agree you can assume that enough people support it. And of course, taking the status quo into account is important. However, if you can't change the status quo, you never move forward. 20 nov. 2022 02:24 van mnalis-openstreetmaplist_at_voyager_hr_prfkut...@simplelogin.co: > This email failed anti-phishing checks when it was received by SimpleLogin, > be careful with its content. > More info on https://simplelogin.io/docs/getting-started/anti-phishing/ > > ------------------------------ > On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 12:12:22 +0100 (CET), Cartographer10 via Tagging > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> I always had good discussion on several platforms for my proposal. Each >> community or person has another view >> which I collect this way. >> > > Nobody (at least I hope) questions that extra communities (or extra persons > is same community) have extra input to > provide! > > Question is: did you then collect all the points those extra communities made > (both those you agreed with, and those > that you didn't agree with), and summarized them on wiki /talk page, for > extra period of RFC? Because if you didn't > (especially if you didn't include things you _disagreed_ with) then you > abused that input to promote your personal view, > and disregarded the best parts that such other views could provide. > > And if you did exactly that - I salute you. Could you link to that proposal > where that was done? > >> This proposal makes sure there are 2 required platforms where people have to >> announce it. That way people have the >> choice to follow one of the two channels of their choice to get updated on >> proposals. It is up to the proposal author >> to announce it on other channels to increase the reach. >> > > I'd at least put in a requirement that if proposal author announces the > discussion in X extra channels (i.e. anywhere > more than Tagging ML), that they must follow ALL that X extra channels and > summarize in Wiki Talk page all points that > have been risen (including those that they think don't matter or disagree > with. Especially those!) and THEN have extra > RFC period after all those X channels have been summarized, before proceeding > to the Voting. > > Because, someone has to do that summarizing work for extra channels to make > sense, and it is IMHO only fair that would > be proposal author (expecting that EVERYBODY will do that SAME task is both > extremely wasteful, hugely unrealistic, > and likely to lead to few participating members willing to do that becoming > burned out prematurely). > >> And btw, if this proposal really turns out bad (which I doubt), it can >> always be reverted by someone creating a >> proposal for it. Sometimes you also have to try something. What is the worst >> thing that can happen? >> > > I can imagine quite bad things, but to be fair, here is a most realistic one > instead: On each changing of status quo, > some people will leave the process for good, as that will be the straw that > broke the camel's back. If you need to > learn from history, see the debate when OSM changed license from CC-BY-SA to > ODbL. And then, if another proposal > changes situation back to what it was before, that will NOT cause (majority > of) people that left to come back. > It will instead cause some MORE people to leave for good (in revolt). > > So it not like in math, when you end with what you started, e.g. "(X + Y) - Y > = X". It is more like Microsoft windows > (you can tell I'm Debian GNU/Linux user, right?), when you install some > random .exe file from the internet and you system > breaks. Then you try to install it in hopes your system will came back as it > was, but instead it breaks some more. > > Because, this is how community works. > There is no "undo" on community goodwill. > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
