2014-12-18 12:19 GMT+00:00 SomeoneElse <[email protected]>: > On 18/12/2014 10:24, Dan S wrote: >> >> Hi Matthijs, >> >> The DWG email used the word "consensus" inappropriately, since >> consensus means everyone agreeing, and we didn't. However, consensus >> is essentially impossible in big wiki communities like ours, so let's >> assume there's a relative meaning of the term ;) > > Maybe I've been using the word inappropriately all these years but I've > always thought that "concensus" meant "general agreement" - the idea that > "we, as a community, generally think this" not that "absolutely everyone > agrees with every part of something 100%". It doesn't mean "10 people who > could be bothered ticked a box on a wiki page". It means, "we, as a > community, have thought about it, discussed it, and although some people may > disagree, the general feeling of the community is X".
I see - in my understanding "consensus" is, at least formally, a stronger term than "general agreement" - "nem con" is perhaps a good equivalent, meaning that no-one disagreed (although some may have abstained). I do recognise it's not always always used that way. > My DWG mail to Matthijs (part of which was selectively quoted to this list) > contained a number of suggestions about how to best to proceed. These > included better explaining why a change now rather than later was > beneficial, and why some of the other suggestions raised last time wouldn't > work for the problem as he sees it. It also covered the issue of how to > ensure that new mappers use the "correct" tags. Thinking about these other > issues is actually far more important than whether or not to do X mechanical > edit. Well I'm sorry for intervening in half a conversation. I was motivated by my perception that someone somewhere had a mistaken impression of unanimity! Best Dan _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
