Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
32 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
As evident in the discussion on issue
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1446 there
are several people interested in maintaining functionality that existed
only a few days ago - being able to view single tiles just as easily as
before.

A patch was submitted which added the tile to the new context menu
(which in itself is a fine addition but eliminated the functionality
being discussed). See
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1450

It was closed and rejected in a very abrupt and unconstructive manner.

The issue itself was also closed with accusation of brigading.

However what was most aberrant there was the assertion "If you want
something to show tile status then fine. I might even agree to an option
to get the tile URL or expire a tile (though the latter is perhaps
unlikely) but it needs to be properly integrated, not just dumping the
URL in another tab and letting the user fiddle with it."

As the issue is closed to non-collaborators I don't find any other place
to bring this up than here. Every person who has put their name to the
discussions, for and against, has done tremendous work for OpenStreetMap
- that is never in doubt.

But removing functionality and then denying it to be re-added based on
very little but personal objective is unhelpful and detrimental.

What should have been a great patch with addition of context menu is
turning into an issue because of one very simple change and resistance
to tweaking it.

Denigrating active mappers because they are "the 0.001%" of the user
base is hardly a solid reason - nor is "what makes good UX for the 99%
not what will make the 1% a little happier".

Did the default map suddenly become a commercial entity overnight which
thinks of margins and market share? If so I'd like to see the result of
the A/B testing that validated removing the functionality of viewing
tiles directly.



--Jói / Stalfur

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Christoph Hormann
On Friday 24 February 2017, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> As evident in the discussion on issue
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1446
> there are several people interested in maintaining functionality that
> existed only a few days ago - being able to view single tiles just as
> easily as before.
>
> [...]

I think the key here is to have more diversity and not insist on every
functionality that could be desirable to be present on
openstreetmap.org.  Certainly this would seem convenient but it
ultimately will never be possible and it would be extremely hard to
maintain.

I for example really miss a coordinate display for the mouse position
but there are plenty of other map interfaces that offer this so no big
deal.

When closing the discussion Tom clearly stated what kind of solution he
considers acceptable:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1446#issuecomment-282233549

Everyone is entitled to disagree with that but you'd also have to ask
yourself why the outlined solution is not acceptable for you.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
In reply to this post by Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
On 24/02/17 10:26, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:

> But removing functionality and then denying it to be re-added based on
> very little but personal objective is unhelpful and detrimental.

As far as I know no functionality has been removed, at least not
recently. Rather a request to add functionality has been declined.

I assume you are referring to the fact that at one point it was possible
to access this via the browser's context menu but the recent addition of
our own context menu has not changed that in any way and you can still
access that menu by holding down shift.

Rather what happened is that at some point (most likely in the 1.0.0
release about six months ago) leaflet started marking tile images with a
CSS attribute that stops the browser offering image options for them in
the default context menu.

I would quite likely accept a patch to override that CSS setting and
restore access to the image options in the browser menu but I still do
not think we should add such an option to our context menu which is
inherently targeted at a more average level of user.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
In reply to this post by Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
Hi!

пт, 24 февр. 2017 г. в 13:30, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson <[hidden email]>:
As evident in the discussion on issue
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1446 there
are several people interested in maintaining functionality that existed
only a few days ago - being able to view single tiles just as easily as
before.

Can you share your use case?
Why would you need to view single tiles?
What does this solve for you that can not be done by other means?

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
In reply to this post by Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
On 24/02/17 10:26, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:

> As evident in the discussion on issue
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/1446 there
> are several people interested in maintaining functionality that existed
> only a few days ago - being able to view single tiles just as easily as
> before.
>
> A patch was submitted which added the tile to the new context menu
> (which in itself is a fine addition but eliminated the functionality
> being discussed). See
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/1450

That is not an accurate description of what happened as I explain in my
previous message.

> It was closed and rejected in a very abrupt and unconstructive manner.

I respectfully disagree that I have been unconstructive. I have made
clear that there are a number of ways that the requested functionality
could be made available including in a detailed response I posted this
morning which you in fact quote from.

> The issue itself was also closed with accusation of brigading.

Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are not
regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add "me
too" style responses.

> But removing functionality and then denying it to be re-added based on
> very little but personal objective is unhelpful and detrimental.

Again that is not what happened. At no point was a decision made to
remove this functionality. Rather it was removed essentially by accident
when leaflet was upgraded and only six months later when we added our
own context menu have people complained about it.

> What should have been a great patch with addition of context menu is
> turning into an issue because of one very simple change and resistance
> to tweaking it.
>
> Denigrating active mappers because they are "the 0.001%" of the user
> base is hardly a solid reason - nor is "what makes good UX for the 99%
> not what will make the 1% a little happier".

It's not intended to denigrate anybody, it's simply to explain that we
can't simply add everything that is of use to some small subset of users
because there is a cost to everything both directly in terms of
maintenance and indirectly in terms of complicating the UI for all the
other users that will never use a given option.

More specifically there were a number of people asserting that this
feature was somehow to all mappers and I was trying to make the point
that really that wasn't true at all and that the was majority of mappers
would never have any use for it.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Dave F
In reply to this post by Jóhannes Birgir Jensson

On 24/02/2017 10:26, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
>
> It was closed and rejected in a very abrupt and unconstructive manner.

Yes. This seems to be Tom Hughes's default reaction. He's certainly
trigger happy with the close button.

DaveF


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Dave F
In reply to this post by Tom Hughes-3

On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are
> not regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add
> "me too" style responses.
>

What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I
have no interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my
OSM usage & I will make a comment. This current topic appears to be
relevant to a few other users.

OSM Github is not a private club. You should be welcoming other
contributors, not 'closing' on them.

DaveF

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
In reply to this post by Tom Hughes-3
On 24/02/17 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:

> Rather what happened is that at some point (most likely in the 1.0.0
> release about six months ago) leaflet started marking tile images with a
> CSS attribute that stops the browser offering image options for them in
> the default context menu.

This is the actual commit to leaflet that caused it:

   https://github.com/Leaflet/Leaflet/commit/0cfe8589

in response to this issue, which unfortunately has no explanation:

   https://github.com/leaflet/leaflet/issues/2396

That then made it's way to OSM when leaflet 1.0.0 was release and we
switched to it on 27th September last year.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
In reply to this post by Dave F
On 24/02/17 11:33, Dave F wrote:

> On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are
>> not regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add
>> "me too" style responses.
>
> What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I
> have no interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my
> OSM usage & I will make a comment. This current topic appears to be
> relevant to a few other users.

The problem is that there is a subset of people that think tickets are a
popularity contest and that if they can just get enough people to vote
for a ticket it will be accepted/implemented/whatever.

That's not how it works however, in almost any open source project in
fact, because things are done because people want to work on them and
are accepted when they are the right thing, whether they are being asked
for by one person or a hundred people.

Even if a hundred people turned up to say they would use this that tells
us nothing about the other million mappers that have no idea what github
even is so it's really not helpful to fill everybody's mail boxes up
with "+1" messages that we're all just going to ignore anyway.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
In reply to this post by Dave F
On 24/02/17 11:27, Dave F wrote:

> On 24/02/2017 10:26, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
>>
>> It was closed and rejected in a very abrupt and unconstructive manner.
>
> Yes. This seems to be Tom Hughes's default reaction. He's certainly
> trigger happy with the close button.

Tickets can always be reopened.

If I'm going to say no to something I might as well close it at the same
time otherwise I have to remember to do so later. If there is a
subsequent discussion that suggests there is a good reason to do it the
ticket can and will be reopened.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Michael Zangl-2
In reply to this post by Tom Hughes-3
Hi,

A few words of someone who is just "using" the OSM website:

I personally think the current Menu is full enough. We should focus on
making that menu better for normal visitors. I could not really think of
a use case where a normal user would want to see a specific map tile. In
my opinion, they should not even know that map tiles exist. If you want
to export a part of the map, use the image functionality in the export tab.

I like that the main site has some dev stuff on it and is sort of a
browser for the database. But for many people, it is the first point
where they get in touch with OSM. And they don't know what a attribute
list is, they don't know about relations and for them, most
functionality of the page is not usable (changesets, object queries,
...). Compared to other map pages, the page is really "technical" the
way it is now.

I support the decision to not include that link to the tile source on
the website: This is a not a dev playground, this is a website that
should be used by millions of normal users. It should provide an entry
point for people that want to improve the OSM database. It should not be
a maintenance tool.

Michael

Am 24.02.2017 um 12:41 schrieb Tom Hughes:

> On 24/02/17 11:33, Dave F wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are
>>> not regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add
>>> "me too" style responses.
>>
>> What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I
>> have no interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my
>> OSM usage & I will make a comment. This current topic appears to be
>> relevant to a few other users.
>
> The problem is that there is a subset of people that think tickets are a
> popularity contest and that if they can just get enough people to vote
> for a ticket it will be accepted/implemented/whatever.
>
> That's not how it works however, in almost any open source project in
> fact, because things are done because people want to work on them and
> are accepted when they are the right thing, whether they are being asked
> for by one person or a hundred people.
>
> Even if a hundred people turned up to say they would use this that tells
> us nothing about the other million mappers that have no idea what github
> even is so it's really not helpful to fill everybody's mail boxes up
> with "+1" messages that we're all just going to ignore anyway.
>
> Tom
>


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
In reply to this post by Tom Hughes-3
пт, 24 февр. 2017 г. в 14:44, Tom Hughes <[hidden email]>:
On 24/02/17 11:27, Dave F wrote:

> On 24/02/2017 10:26, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
>>
>> It was closed and rejected in a very abrupt and unconstructive manner.
>
> Yes. This seems to be Tom Hughes's default reaction. He's certainly
> trigger happy with the close button.

Tickets can always be reopened.

Unfortunately, discussion can't happen in tickets where discussion was limited to collaborators:

Discussion can happen outside, but from my experience tickets are being closed at sight and aren't really being reopened. People just go away and chat "oh how stupid we can do nothing about it" in chats.

It also doesn't create a friendly atmosphere at all when you get a response like this minutes after creating a ticket: https://pp.vk.me/c837224/v837224128/2859d/dX2cSI8qmY4.jpg (and it gets reopened after IRC discussion and this comment gets magically disappeared).

Also an issue being closed makes it look like it already was addressed and "there's nothing we can do", while there are still a lot of things that can be done:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/135 (/map call is extremely inefficient now, and that's architectural issue).

Closing tickets like this makes it look like there are no issues in the project. So when Foundation Board has a meeting, how exactly can they get the idea there's a set of internal issues to handle, and it may be worth at the point hiring someone to resolve it, instead of hoping for volunteers to handle the low-level architecture issues in their free time?

If I'm going to say no to something I might as well close it at the same
time otherwise I have to remember to do so later. If there is a
subsequent discussion that suggests there is a good reason to do it the
ticket can and will be reopened.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Michael Zangl-2

2017-02-24 13:11 GMT+01:00 Michael Zangl <[hidden email]>:
This is a not a dev playground, this is a website that
should be used by millions of normal users. It should provide an entry
point for people that want to improve the OSM database. It should not be
a maintenance tool.


which page do you suggest should those millions of users use after they have become contributors and want to see tile urls?

It would be nice to have a custom right click menu, either completely custom by user pref or for the start generalized in basic groups (like logged in and not, where not logged in users get more "common map right-click features", and logged in user get more mapper-interest right click functionality). Current state could be used as default.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Blake Girardot HOT/OSM
In reply to this post by Dave F
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are not
>> regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add "me too"
>> style responses.
>>
>
> What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I have no
> interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my OSM usage & I
> will make a comment. This current topic appears to be relevant to a few
> other users.
>
> OSM Github is not a private club. You should be welcoming other
> contributors, not 'closing' on them.
>
> DaveF

I second this 100%!

If something is of interest to someone and they know other
stakeholders who have similar use cases or the feature is important to
them, getting them to actually contribute their input is really an
invaluable opportunity for developers.

No one person is ever going to be able to imagine how the 1000's of
users of OSM might have needs. This was a great example (maybe) of
someone taking the time to find others who have similar needs and
getting them to share their user stories as well.

I actually doubt that is what happened, but instead that users who
take the time to follow the project just happened to have similar use
cases and joined the conversation. They probably represent many other
users.

I would also say that well added UI for power users, educates and
helps build skills and knowledge in all users.

All that said, the time and dedication people like TomH, Lonvia,
bhousel and the other contributors to the OSM ecosystem contribute is
incredible and we would be in a very different place without them. And
the feedback on this thread is very valuable to helping make the
community better so thank you all for speaking up and sharing your
perspective.

Cheers
Blake
--
----------------------------------------------------
Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
skype: jblakegirardot
HOT Core Team Contact: [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
On 24/02/17 14:43, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are not
>>> regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add "me too"
>>> style responses.
>>
>> What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I have no
>> interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my OSM usage & I
>> will make a comment. This current topic appears to be relevant to a few
>> other users.
>>
>> OSM Github is not a private club. You should be welcoming other
>> contributors, not 'closing' on them.
>
> I second this 100%!
>
> If something is of interest to someone and they know other
> stakeholders who have similar use cases or the feature is important to
> them, getting them to actually contribute their input is really an
> invaluable opportunity for developers.

An issue tracker is not a general discussion board though, and there has
to be some sort of limit to discussions there if we're not all going to
be driven insane.

The people that were turning up in this case were not saying adding new
information by saying "I use that to do X" where X was something new
that nobody had mentioned before that might change the balance of
whether it was worth doing but rather they were just asserting that they
used the feature like the previous commenters - they were adding
quantity to the discussion not quality.

I don't normally lock issues, so in the vast majority of cases people
are welcome to comment on closed issues if they have some new
information to add, and if that leads to a closed issue being reopened
then that is fine.

I lock issues when people are continuing to post in a way which is not
useful and doesn't add anything - restating a position over and over
again without adding new information is not meaningful discussion and
when that happens I may decide to lock the issue.

The alternative (to preserve my sanity) is that I simply unsubscribe
from those issues and leave people to waffle on in an echo chamber but
I'm not really sure that's better for anybody is it?

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
In reply to this post by Dave F
Hi!
 
OSM Github is not a private club. You should be welcoming other
contributors, not 'closing' on them.

Here lies a heartbreaking thing:

openstreetmap-website is actually a single person's project. 
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/graphs/contributors  

If you look at it, it's not "community developed this", or "OSMF developed this", or even "a private club developed this" which you paint as a dark scenario.

It's being mostly written and deployed by the same person. 
This is Bus Factor 1 scenario.

Short term: we need to keep Tom Hughes sane and safe.
Long term: we either close OpenStreetMap as a whole, or make sure there's a bigger stable development team behind openstreetmap-website.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

William Temperley
In reply to this post by Tom Hughes-3


On 24 February 2017 at 16:14, Tom Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/02/17 14:43, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:

Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are not
regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add "me too"
style responses.

What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I have no
interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my OSM usage & I
will make a comment. This current topic appears to be relevant to a few
other users.

OSM Github is not a private club. You should be welcoming other
contributors, not 'closing' on them.

I second this 100%!

If something is of interest to someone and they know other
stakeholders who have similar use cases or the feature is important to
them, getting them to actually contribute their input is really an
invaluable opportunity for developers.

An issue tracker is not a general discussion board though, and there has to be some sort of limit to discussions there if we're not all going to be driven insane.

The people that were turning up in this case were not saying adding new information by saying "I use that to do X" where X was something new that nobody had mentioned before that might change the balance of whether it was worth doing but rather they were just asserting that they used the feature like the previous commenters - they were adding quantity to the discussion not quality.

I don't normally lock issues, so in the vast majority of cases people are welcome to comment on closed issues if they have some new information to add, and if that leads to a closed issue being reopened then that is fine.

I lock issues when people are continuing to post in a way which is not useful and doesn't add anything - restating a position over and over again without adding new information is not meaningful discussion and when that happens I may decide to lock the issue.

The alternative (to preserve my sanity) is that I simply unsubscribe from those issues and leave people to waffle on in an echo chamber but I'm not really sure that's better for anybody is it?




I agree with Tom that an issue tracker is not a discussion board.

The way it plays out is that the 0.1% with the (edge) use-case will come across the issue, because it affects them and they searched for it.
Nobody else will know or care about its existence, because it hasn't affected them. The result is therefore a very one-sided debate, and the developer feels rail-roaded.

I would suggest a new thread on this list (which is a discussion board) with a subject something like "Show tile image option removed from OSM website".  
This can then be linked to from the offending issue and Tom can get on with his good work.


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Дмитрий Киселев
My five cents:

at this moment, we have some widely used resources such as osm.org and osm carto, 
started and threated as single persons gh repository. 

And we (osm community) don't have a way to discuss and evaluate changes in collaborative way.
Usually maintainer just decides "Do I love this feature or not" and that's a kind of a problem.

Yes "+ one" can say nothing about millions of other users, but neighter main maintainer can.

I think we have to have key features as osm.org and main style maintained in more open way.

Regards, Dmitry.

2017-02-24 12:04 GMT-04:00 William Temperley <[hidden email]>:


On 24 February 2017 at 16:14, Tom Hughes <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/02/17 14:43, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Dave F <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 24/02/2017 11:19, Tom Hughes wrote:

Well it was a little odd that we suddenly got several people who are not
regular commenters turning up in the space of a few minute to add "me too"
style responses.

What's wrong with that? There are numerous discussions in Dev that I have no
interest in, but on occasion there's something relevant to my OSM usage & I
will make a comment. This current topic appears to be relevant to a few
other users.

OSM Github is not a private club. You should be welcoming other
contributors, not 'closing' on them.

I second this 100%!

If something is of interest to someone and they know other
stakeholders who have similar use cases or the feature is important to
them, getting them to actually contribute their input is really an
invaluable opportunity for developers.

An issue tracker is not a general discussion board though, and there has to be some sort of limit to discussions there if we're not all going to be driven insane.

The people that were turning up in this case were not saying adding new information by saying "I use that to do X" where X was something new that nobody had mentioned before that might change the balance of whether it was worth doing but rather they were just asserting that they used the feature like the previous commenters - they were adding quantity to the discussion not quality.

I don't normally lock issues, so in the vast majority of cases people are welcome to comment on closed issues if they have some new information to add, and if that leads to a closed issue being reopened then that is fine.

I lock issues when people are continuing to post in a way which is not useful and doesn't add anything - restating a position over and over again without adding new information is not meaningful discussion and when that happens I may decide to lock the issue.

The alternative (to preserve my sanity) is that I simply unsubscribe from those issues and leave people to waffle on in an echo chamber but I'm not really sure that's better for anybody is it?




I agree with Tom that an issue tracker is not a discussion board.

The way it plays out is that the 0.1% with the (edge) use-case will come across the issue, because it affects them and they searched for it.
Nobody else will know or care about its existence, because it hasn't affected them. The result is therefore a very one-sided debate, and the developer feels rail-roaded.

I would suggest a new thread on this list (which is a discussion board) with a subject something like "Show tile image option removed from OSM website".  
This can then be linked to from the offending issue and Tom can get on with his good work.


_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev




--
Thank you for your time. Best regards.
Dmitry.

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Tom Hughes-3
On 24/02/17 16:24, Дмитрий Киселев wrote:

 > at this moment, we have some widely used resources such as osm.org
 > and osm carto, started and threated as single persons gh repository.

Actually carto has had multiple maintainers for some time. Indeed the
original maintainer, who I assume you are referring to, is not actually
doing very much these days.

While osm.org has only one maintainer we have been getting some more
contributors recently. Andy has been refactoring the tests to use
factories instead of fixtures (a big job) and Herve has been updating
the emails we send out to start with.

> And we (osm community) don't have a way to discuss and evaluate changes
> in collaborative way.

That can certainly work, and I've discussed it with people in the past
although not everybody has always agreed with the idea.

The key thing is that you need some mechanism for appointing people to
that circle of maintainers who get to vote on which things should be
included and which shouldn't. On most projects that is done by promoting
from those making useful contributions, so it's hard to move in that
direction until we can get more people involved.

Note that when I say vote here I don't necessarily mean literally as
there are different models - some projects have a formal vote of some
sort for each feature (often requiring at least one +1 and no -1 for
example) while others allow maintainers to decide on their own but with
a reversion mechanism if somebody objects.

Note that you do need to preselect the voting group, otherwise anybody
that can drum up enough +1's can get anything in.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Removing functionality and giving just No as answer

Daniel Koć
In reply to this post by Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
W dniu 24.02.2017 16:59, Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski napisał(a):

> If you look at it, it's not "community developed this", or "OSMF
> developed this", or even "a private club developed this" which you
> paint as a dark scenario.
>
> It's being mostly written and deployed by the same person.
> This is Bus Factor 1 scenario.

Well, for me it looks like this is not as bad as you say:
https://blog.gravitystorm.co.uk/2017/02/21/steady-progress-osm-website/

But it's not that good either:
https://blog.gravitystorm.co.uk/2016/07/28/getting-involved-in-owg/

"The club" is rather tight now, but at least one person is aware that
more people would be needed to allow smooth operations and development.
The main issue seems to be how to attract them?

Sadly, this is not the only fragile element in OSM ecosystem.

We had this "Bus Factor 1 scenario" with forum lately. Fortunately no
bus was involved and no admin was harmed, but Lambertus has effectively
"stepped down" one day and was very hard to reach. It ended up with
saner and more balanced forum management (server migration from
independent location into OSMF controlled one and 3 new admins), so it's
much better now than before admin became inactive.

OSM-carto development has also its own problems, although far from being
that serious. While there's more people on the board with merging rights
lately, it's still no more than few people active there and agreement is
rather hard to reach.

I have no idea how to attract more people and at the same time not
stress the active people even more than they're now. Yet, it's a
dangerous situation and I hope it will be resolved before some bad
things will strike us again.

--
"Like a halo in reverse" [M. Gore]

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
12