Hi, Implementing the outcome of what the working group comes up with is not an issue IMO. We have the presets in the editors and the errors in keepright. Together those are way more powerful than any discussion here or even the mapfeatures page.. My guess is that the developers those projects will be very happy with clear guidance on the 'rules'.
The main task of the working group would be to search through mailing list(s), discussion pages etc. and decide what the outcome is. The way I see it all the pieces are there it is just unclear as to what the outcome/conclusion is. So the goal would be to collect all the points of view, weigh them and present their conclusion. The wiki page could have an extra tab where the outcome of the working group presents their result. If unhappy comments turn up on the mailing list they could decide to go a second round. When they have finished a subject the mapfeature would be updated. Also they would inform the various developers groups (editors, keepright, stylesheets) of the status quo, and hopefully there is a contact for the translated mapfeatures pages. The working group would decide which feature to tackle, but there could also be a 'wishlist' where requests could be put up and be voted on to get an order of priority helping them which feature to tackle next. I am not a big fan of voting. Sometimes it is necessary to cut a long discussion short where one needs to 'force' an agreement. So voting the way it is now where those involved in the discussion do the voting IMO doesn't need to change. The hard part as I see it is who gets to decide who is in the working group. Is it a fixed group where we vote who gets in? Maybe ad hoc groups where someone announces on this mailing list they want to tackle a feature and invites others to join? When is a group a group? The working group will need some kind of authority to work, otherwise they will just be ignored and ineffective. Lambert Carsten On Sunday 16 August 2009 01:51:43 James Livingston wrote: > On 16/08/2009, at 2:20 AM, Tom Chance wrote: > > Probably sensible to start with something more manageable than path/ > > highway. > > Maybe the forest/wood debate. > > Sounds good to me. The important thing is that the group has their > goals set out explicitly, so they know exactly what they should be > doing, and they know when they're finished. > > To me, this means that we need to collect a complete list of all the > tree/wood/forest-related things that people may want to add to OSM > (even if they already have tagging solutions), with good descriptions, > if possible photos and what implications people think they have. The > WG could then sit down and figure out which of them are actually the > same, and then find a good tagging scheme. > > > I think the "complete list of what we want to tag" is something we're > missing in the current arguments. How are we supposed to know if what > people are talking about are actually the same thing? Especially since > language is an issue, either not having English as a first language, > or not having the same English (e.g. British vs Australia vs American). > > > The one missing part to work out is how we respond to the proposal. > > The best > > thing I can imagine is if we could set-up a poll that uses our > > OSM.org logins > > and we notify as many users as possible through every channel > > available. We > > could set the bar at something like >1000 votes and a 66% majority > > needed. > > I think that if the WG comes up with a solution after taking into > account, then it would likely be acceptable to most people. If not, > then it probably didn't represent a crosssection of the community, or > people didn't add their items to the list of things to tag. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
