Proposal:Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list

Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum instead of the mailing list
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Cartographer10
Draft started:	2022-09-24
RFC start:	2022-09-24
Vote start:	2022-10-09
Vote end:	2022-10-23

Proposal

The following is proposed:

• Proposal authors should no longer be required to announce their proposal on the tagging mailing list but on the new forum instead [1].

Note: The wiki talk page will remain the first and recommended place to discuss proposals, this proposal does not change that. The mapper is free to also discuss the proposal optionally on other places like the tagging mailing list or the forum.

Rationale

Currently, the tagging mailing list and OpenStreetMap wiki fill an important formal role in the process of discussing and voting of proposals. A new forum [2] has been created which offers many new possibilities. In particular for (tagging) proposals. These proposals often affect the entire community. The proposal process requires proposal announcements to be made on the tagging mailing list. However, as explained below the mailing list is not very accessible/attractive for many mappers. The new forum, intended to be a central community place, is therefore a better place for these announcements. The main result will be in increased engagement by the community because the barrier to participate or create proposals is reduced. Below, several reasons for this changes are listed:

• Switching to the forums for RFC and vote announcements allows every mapper to participate without the need to create a new account. They can use their current OSM account. For the mailing list, they have to subscribe to the mailing list to actually receive the emails.
• Because of how the mailing list works, you get a lot of emails that are not relevant. This discourages subscribing to the mailing list if you only want notifications of new proposals and votes. This also results in lots of irrelevant email from the proposal author who only wants to announce and optionally discuss the proposal on the mailing list.
• It is known that there are quite some mappers who really dislike the mailing list. Because of the requirement to announce a proposal and vote there, these people are discouraged to continue with the proposal. This excludes people from coming with good proposals from which the community can benefit.
• Using simple RSS or email notifications, people can subscribe to new proposals and votes on the new community forum. This is accomplished by following tags (see explanation below).

The Wiki's talk page is still the recommended place for discussing proposals. This is the current situation and this proposal does not change that. However, the new forum does offer some nice enhancements for discussions:

• The new forum allows for mid-thread joining. On the tagging mailing list, it is hard to join mid discussion because you don't have access to previous received emails before subscribing. Via the archive you can see previous emails, but replying to them is hard. The user interface of this archive also does not allow for easy navigation.
• The new forum works really well on mobile devices. The wiki, in particular, does not offer a user friendly mobile experience for editing.
• The new forum has better formatting options for mappers to support their opinions — for example: code blocks, adding images, etc.
• Using emoticon reactions, users can indicate they (dis)agree with a given comment. This prevents clutter in the discussion while still adding value to the discussion.
• Moderators can branch off topics when they become off-topic. This prevents clutter in the discussion.

RFC announcement template

To announce a proposal, a new topic has to be created with the following format (copied from current Proposal process except for the tag):

• Forum location: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general or a new to create sub-community for proposals
• Title: [RFC] Feature Proposal - <PROPOSAL NAME>
• Topic body: <DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL> <LINK TO PROPOSAL ON WIKI> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.
• Assign the tags: wiki-proposal, rfc

Voting announcement template

To announce a vote, a new topic has to be created with the following format (copied from current Proposal process except for the tag):

• Forum location: https://community.openstreetmap.org/c/general or a new to create sub-community for proposals
• Title: [Voting] Feature Proposal - <PROPOSAL NAME>
• Topic body: Voting has started for <PROPOSAL NAME>. <LINK TO PROPOSAL ON WIKI>
• Assign the tags: wiki-proposal, vote

For both the voting and RFC, the mapper can optionally spread this message on other platforms like Discord, the tagging mailing list and other channels.

A separate proposal has been made to move the voting process to the forums. See Proposed features/Move proposal voting from wiki to the new forum for the required changes.

Subscribing to tags on Discourse

Discourse allows you follow a specific tag. If all RFC and vote announcements use the tag wiki-proposal, people can follow this tag using one of the options shown in the image below. Just click a tag or navigate to the URL. Example for the tag feedback-request: https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/feedback-request

Adding .rss to the url allows people to follow the tag via RSS. Example: https://community.openstreetmap.org/tag/feedback-request.rss

Features/Pages affected

• https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process
• A new sub-community on the new forum can be created for these announcements and discussion.

External discussions

• Discussion on the new forum
• Proposal announcement on the tagging mailing list

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 49 votes for, 27 votes against and 4 abstentions.

64% approved

Instructions for voting

• Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
• Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:

To get this output	you type	Description
I approve this proposal.	{{vote|yes}} --~~~~	Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
I oppose this proposal. reason	{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~	Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments	{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~	If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.

• I approve this proposal. --Cartographer10 (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. "The Wiki's talk page is still the recommended place for discussing proposals." - is it adding new rule via backdoor? Why Wiki's talk page would be currently preferred? (sadly Mediawiki discussion handling is a bit absurd) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mateusz Konieczny: The current proposal process recommends the following body of the rfc announcement email <DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL> <LINK TO PROPOSAL ON WIKI> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.. I wanted to emphasize that I only change where we announce proposals, not where we discuss proposals. --Cartographer10 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  Huh. I opened discussion with intention of removing that Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mateusz Konieczny: Ah, good that you started the discussion. Missed that one because you created it today. However, changing that was always outside the scope of this proposal (as explained in the proposal) --Cartographer10 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion started as result of our exchange here, so you were unable to notice it before starting this vote :) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. There is no harm if we require announcements to be made on two channels (forum and mailing list). It is too premature to force people that quickly into a new platform. --Nakaner (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  How about requiring announcements on either one, not a must for both? --- Kovposch (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --SafetyIng (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. This should be a two stage process. Start with both channels and see if the new option works. Adavidson (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Email is not necessarily best, considering self-hosted or custom domain and other non-major player solutions will easily be caught up in spam. Unless the main website messaging system can be made into email-like to become another mailing list, but that doesn't seem worthwhile --- Kovposch (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  forum get spammed too, just in case you discoverd it today and haven't see yet a spam in a forum Marc marc (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. I belong to the users who a discouraged to participate in the proposal process more by the rule that I need to use the mailing list for announcements. -- Discostu36 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. It's high time the mailing lists were made progressively more obsolete, it's not the 1990s anymore. --Rayleigh1 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Wetterauer (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. As a minimum requirement, I agree that the Discourse forum is more user-friendly than the mailing list, especially for users, like me, who don't want to be subscribed to all discussions in the tagging mailing list. If I understand correctly, this proposal still allows announcements to be made in the ML, it just doesn't make it mandatory. That sounds acceptable to me. --Waldyrious (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --501ghost (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Minimum browser requirements of new forum are high. The mailing list is much simpler. Also see Special:MobileDiff/2416709 -- Something B (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Martin minheim (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --OSMRogerWilco (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I fully agree with the rationale that having to work with the mailing list is too big a hurdle for proposers and people interested in new proposals (since CatWatch is still not enabled the Wiki won't do either): Subscribe + make your e-mail address public + be flooded with e-mails you're not interested in + filter out messages that concern your proposal + unsubscribe. Apart from the “it's too early for that”-argument (if you really think so then kindly suggest when it is high time) I really do not see any drawback in implementing this proposal: Users who dislike working with forums can enable Discourse's excellent mailing list mode. --Nw520 (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --HirschKauz (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. but I would prefer the forum to be the recommended place for discussing proposals instead of the Wiki talk page --Ivanbranco (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As per Nakaner, Adavidson and Something B. I also don't think that the linear nature of Discourse discussions lends itself to long discussions at all. So requiring proposals to be announced on such a platform instead of a platform that actually supports hierarchical threads does not make much sense to me. Yes the mailing list UI isn't ideal but that is something that can be improved. --push-f (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. as per push-f which means it inherits also the contributions by Nakaner, Adavidson and Something B. Also I do not see a reasonable transition plan, how long is the transition period etc. Finally I believe this will make people’s life more difficult because it means we’ll have discussions on the tagging mailing list which lead to a proposal that is then announced on a different medium and voting is on the wiki, so visiting 3 different venues required instead of 2. I could imagine moving the tagging mailing list to the community forum as a whole if it supported threaded discussion. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Dieterdreist: That is no different from other communication platforms. If we have a discussion on Discord, I have to make a proposal and announce it on the mailing list. The same for forums, local chat apps etc. So it can also be viewed the other way around. --Cartographer10 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Mashin (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --chris66 (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Unbeatable101 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --geow (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --*abq* (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Bradrh (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Using both channels for a start would have my approval, though. No need to hurry, the new discourse forum is too fresh.--Yvecai (talk) 15:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 15:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. it's premature, the conversation has shown that switching from the list to the forum is non-functional for half of the important points. when this is done, then it will be possible to create a common place between emails and a forum interface, and this proposal will have no more interest, each one choosing his preferred way of communication. until then I see no reason to force people to use an interface with the least advanced capabilities Marc marc (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Marc marc: The recommended place for discussion stays the Talk page on wiki. I don't force people to participate in discussions on the new forum. I only change where announcements are made. I have shown that there are enough ways to subscribe to announcements on the new forum (also get notifications via email). People can then discuss the proposal on the talk page if they don't like discussing on the new forum --Cartographer10 (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  your recommended place for discussion stays the Talk page on wiki, saying that it is a generalization doesn't change the reality that tagging is widely used (the wiki surely works very well for slow and simple discussions, where everyone has time to read the notification before the next message, it doesn't work for fast discussions (you don't get a 2nd notification if you don't mark the 1st as read in the wiki, so you also don't get the 2nd content by email), nor for complex discussions (trying to quote a piece of message to reply to it, it's not convenient in the wiki)

  when it comes to the place of discussion, yes you said that it is easy for tagging people to all subscribe to the forum so that you don't have to post a message when a proposal is made. but you obviously don't understand that some people don't want an additional place and that this problem will disappear the day the forum will be mature enough to be used by email as well, which will allow a unified communication instead of an additional fragmentation Marc marc (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Kjon (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Grass-snake (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I appreciate not having to expose my email address, and email threads are poorly suited for multi-person discussions. --Bgo eiu (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Bgo eiu:, you don't have to. On our mailing lists disposable addresses are an option. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Nospam2005: I have done this and I find it to be more trouble than it is worth. If I don't forward it to my main email, I forget to check it, and if I forward it, I inevitably accidentally respond with my main email. The forum sends email notifications without exposing the email; this is ideal. (Email addresses also increasingly require phone verification and I do not always have a phone on hand.) --Bgo eiu (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Bgo eiu: most (if not all) email client, including those for phones, supports multiple email addresses and responding never exposes another account's address nor doesn a good email forwarder. as for the fact that you don't have always access to your email to subscribe to the list because it requires your phone, it's quite funny that you write that on a wiki that required your email to subscribe and subscribing is only a one-time thing. the argument doesn't hold up. just say you prefer a web interface :) and that's fine, an email-forum merge (=when it matures, those who have tested by email say half don't work) could satisfy your preference without being against others' preference Marc marc (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. -BubbaJuice (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Same reasons as Dieterdreist, Something B and Marc marc. Most importantly, there should be a transition period where proposals have to be announced in both channels. If this doesn't happen, then the proposal does exactly what it wants to avoid: Exclude people. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. +1 to other similar votes, especially the one of @Yvecai: and @Martianfreeloader:. If you were confident in the advantages of Discourse, you would have chosen this option, wouldn't you? --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. While I would support announcing the proposals in the new forum, there are a few problems: 1) It is unreasonable to stop use of the mailing list before the forum is even tried. 2) Not everyone wants to discuss proposals on the wiki, some seem to prefer the mailing list, and they should be allowed to continue discussion there. 3) The proposal also is not clear where new announcements should be made, it is said that it could be in the forum "general" formum or a new "to create sub-community for proposals" - but this needs to be decided now if this is going to be a requirement. Therefore, I recommend creating a new "proposal" forum and recommending use of it, then see how it works before changing "requirements". --Jeisenbe (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. At a bare minimum, there needs to be a transition period where both are in use, to see how well announcing on the forum works in actual practice. --Carnildo (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. This makes the proposal process accessible to a wider part of the community. But for a while, there should be a strong recommendation to include the tagging mailing list as in the past (because otherwise a part of the community that has participated so far would surely be out of reach). Maybe automated messages to the TML are also possible once a new RFC or voting has been started in the forum.--Supaplex030 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. In short, I'm voting against deprecating the mailing list, the "instead". I'm very strongly against closed platforms (walled gardens) such as Discourse. It's happened in the past, it's happening now in OSM, and unfortunately I can easily see it happen again in the future: communities moving to it from the "arcane/old-fashioned/obsolete/etc mailing lists" simply because it's more hip, "easier to use"/"more accessible"; and said communities end up dying out because the people most invested in them are against this pointless hip (the grossest example is probably Erlang). Regarding ease of use, it's highly subjective -- I personally loathe heavy and slow "modern" web pages; I feel like I'm wasting valuable time trying to navigate these oh-so-easy-to-use platforms, having to infinitely click here and there... I have enough wrist problems already, thank you very much. And regarding "accessibility": ever tried using any "modern" web site (Discourse included) on an old/underpowered computer/phone in your day-to-day? I can access, read, and write all of my email on my Raspberry Pi 2 if needed; can't say the same about Discourse. We see this trend time and time again, and I'm absolutely certain that I'm not the only one of this opinion: accessibility is a very different thing from ease of use. There are people who can't easily access OSM facilities (even the popular OSM Weekly, a simple HTML page) due to slow/intermittent internet connection, but the rest of the community doesn't seem much to care. Finally, as for the "mailing list" feature that Discourse likes to advertise, please stop talking about it already, we know about it, it's merely a toy bone to stop old dogs from barking too loud... And old I'm not even, sheesh! --O-andras (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  "I'm very strongly against closed platforms (walled gardens) such as Discourse" - Discourse has not got this problem. It is self-hosted with OSM account log in. You may be confusing it with Discord Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mateusz Konieczny: No, I mean Discourse, I know the difference, and being self-hosted or otherwise does not necessarily mean much. How easily can one download archives of posts/threads (if at all possible), and how easily can one consume them (outside Discourse)? That's what I mean by "walled garden". If it's not possible, Discourse is just another place where content goes to die. Email and mailing lists have been around since before the dinosaurs -- that's a pro, not a con! because it means they've been used in very constrained environments -- and those features have been around for just as long -- email archives aren't lost when the mailing list management software is changed, everything is exported from the old and imported into the new. Were anyone to decide to move away from Discourse, how easily (if at all possible) could we keep the current content? --O-andras (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  Note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform is typically defined more restrictively. And I just tried asking for archive downloads at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/discourse-database-dump-is-it-published/3853 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mateusz Konieczny: Yes, my usage of the term was ambiguous, but it has many related names ("vendor lock-in", "defective by design", "DRM", ...). Thanks for asking! Though, expectedly, some of the replies really show just how much (little) people care about this ("why such a dump would be needed in the first place", "I will not be publishing the discouse database dumps / backups"). No personal ill will towards any of the participants of that thread BTW, it's only a manifestation of how Discourse is meant (not) to work. --O-andras (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  @O-andras: "replies really show just how much (little) people care about this" (1) that is the worst possible interpretation (2) it is not really helpful (3) you have not even tried explaining there why it would be useful or why it is important. I like complaining and ranting, but I recommend not starting from it and at least trying to request/explain first Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Mateusz Konieczny: (1) I think you're a programmer, so you probably have heard of duck typing: "if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is a duck!" I'm not omniscient, I have no idea what goes on in anyone else's head (not even my own sometimes). I have to go by how people act/speak/etc. And people have been acting/speaking/etc like they don't care about this particular issue (clarifying in case you misunderstood this important detail). (2) That is probably true. Sorry for my unhelpful comment(s) then. (3) I have given at least one very specific reason to prefer open platforms over "closed" platforms (as I described them above; I know Discourse is FLOSS and we (the OSMF I think?) are hosting it ourselves).

• I approve this proposal. --Jmarchon (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Rtnf (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Good step in improving accessibility and participation, especially for the newer generation of mappers. --Tjuro (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  can you eplain the improved of accessibility that there would be to move from an email to a web forum? As far as I know, accessibility tools such as those for the blind read emails without a problem (there is one blind-user on the talk-fr list), I wouldn't dare claim that his tools can be used on a forum, unless you've actually tested it, but is that the case or is it just free claims? Marc marc (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact, yes, I can: https://www.discourse.org/accessibility also I meant accessibility in the brother sense of the word. Websites are so accessible because of the fact that you can easily link to other places just like I did here. --Tjuro (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. I think it's too early to remove the mailing list as the required place to post and a more defined transition period is needed. For now, the better approach would be to set up the forum so that any proposals posted there send an automated email to the tagging mailing list. As (if) people transition in the future, then these rules can be changed. Casey boy (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think it is too early. People have to warm to the new forum first. I can see that once this has happened there might be a natural tendency for some things to move to the new forum and then we can think about changing the rules. But for now, things work well enough. Frankly, I don't share the rationale above - someone who proposes a new tag will already have to set up the wiki page and read up on the process, will one extra small thing really discourage them? They don't even have to sign up to the mailing list, they can just ask someone else to post the announcement there. I don't see the need to rush this and I also sense some disrespect towards the mailing list community in the proposal, as if one wanted to make the mailing list obsolete as quickly as possible. --Woodpeck (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Personally, I won't sign up for the forum, because I simple don't want to sign up for another platform for OSM; I'm content enough with the mailing list. B-unicycling (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  "I won't sign up for the forum, because I simple don't want to sign up for another platform for OSM" - you can login with OSM account there @B-unicycling: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. ( for adding an announcement RFC (Request For Comments) thread to the new forum (Discourse) & for removing the current required announcement RFC (Request For Comments) to the mailing list.) --MalgiK (talk) 10:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Way too premature (we weren't even able to completely remove old forums!). Maybe if it was proposed to announce on both mailing list and forum it might be more palatable for some, but that simply means double the work for everyone. Better to wait when (if?) the Discourse and ML get merged, so users can access the same content via whatever interface they prefer (of which I find ML infinitely faster and easier and more versatile to work with than clunky web UI with no advanced functionalities) - as that would make a whole issue disappear by itself --mnalis (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  “announce on both mailing list and forum it might be more palatable for some, but that simply means double the work for everyone” You could CC the discourse forum to post via email. Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  • your link is not possible right now (no tagging sub-topic, no email for a tagging sub-topic (or not-uptodate doc), ...) > premature, promotion of making mandatory some things that don't work yet Marc marc (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. premature --Polarbear w (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. It’s a bit too early for a hard switch, but using both side by side seems sensible for now. Diacritic (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. While I do believe it is a bit early for a full switch; I also believe that until the switch is done good methodologies to deal with the new functions will not be developed. I like this because it will allow people who are not in the tagging mailing list to easily get to know about proposals and discuss about them. --Davidoskky (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I feel that the forum is just warming up and I'd prefer that announcements be made to both locations for now, then drop the mailing list later if its usage drops. --Adamfranco (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. It's too soon to start relying on the Discourse Forum. OSMers creating new tagging systems should consult the wider community (like on discourse) anyway, but it's too early to start switching things to there. Amᵃᵖanda (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Deliberately and immediately dropping support for a long-established and widely accessible, if older-technology, medium with good archival access in favor of a newly set up forum is antithetical to building community. --Kbroderick (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Markkerrigan (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Emilius123 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. can't be worse than mailing lists --Tomczk (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As per everybody else, it's just way too early to make Discourse compulsory. Even saying you have to announce things on both sites is going to mean that the person who put forward the proposal is going to be discussing (frequently the same) arguments in 3 separate places :-( --Fizzie41 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I still prefer the mailing list not to miss something important that's going on. It would take more time to check mails AND Discourse, and still I have my problems with the very strong branched communication there and the browser dependent UI. Quite similar to statements eg. by Mnalis. --Segubi (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. The mailing list has always been obtuse and outdated. Plus most of the main users of it already using the forums. So there's a point where the forums are and should be used for things like proposal announcements. It might as well happen now instead of later. The whole notation that there needs to be a transition period is ridiculous on it's face. Forums have been around since at least the early 1990s and everyone knows how to use them. Whereas, people don't do proposals because of the current requirement that they be announced on the mailing list. OSM really needs to do a better job at being more inclusive of non-tech savvy users, or at least not actively alienate them from the project like requiring them to use the mailing-list for certain things does. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  According to the doc posted above, there isn't even a tagging section, so claiming that the majority of tagging users are on the forum isn't very rational, any more than claiming that a non-tech person has trouble using an email (the email he used to sign up for osm, according to you non-tech people don't even know how to sign up for the forum Marc marc (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  Go tell someone non tech savy using the Yahoo mail web interface to follow the fountains thread that is currently being discussed on the mailing list and to make a proposal based on that. Let's not be ridiculous the mailing list is difficult to use and even many people using it are not doing it correctly. At least the forum allows moderators to move messages in the most appropriate topics... --Davidoskky (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. @Marc marc: Your repeated insistence that using the mailing list is exactly like sending an email is just dishonest. There's more to using the mailing list then simply writing an email and pushing the send button. They aren't even comparable and it's not a super intuitive process like email is by any means. Like Davidoskky says even people who are using it often don't do it correctly. I have no problem with you or anyone else arguing that the mailing is "better" then the forums for announcing proposals. It's extremely ridiculous to act as if using the mailing list is just like sending an email. More so to act like the platform has no issues what-so-ever. There's clearly problems with it. That's fine, nothing is perfect. Outright denying it's difficult for some people to use really isn't helpful though. Adamant1 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. -- Privatemajory (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- SimonPoole (talk) 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --JannikK (talk) 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Sdicke (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As per Nakaner --Mueschel (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Too early. I'd like to see a transition period where both are used or wait until the use of Discourse is more established. --Eginhard (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. — Koreller (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. - The mailing lists only reach a small part of the Openstreetmap community. The archives are hard to read. It makes much more sense to me to use the new forum, that you can easily use with your OSM-account. A67-A67 (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. - If this passes, it would prevent gatekeeping behind the old and hard to use mailing list, allowing all users no matter their technical literacy to make comments and suggest changes on proposals. Discourse has been used for many years by projects and companies alike so it's quite well established. To the people complaining about having to keep track on both the mailing list and forum, this is just a transition phase, eventually it's likely that the mailing list won't be needed or used anymore. --Mxdanger (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. - I'm very much in favor of requiring proposal announcements on the new forum, and removing the requirement for a proposal author to subscribe and post on the mailing list themselves. However, I think it makes sense for these announcements to continue being posted to the mailing list as well for the time being. If the proposal author is subscribed, this is a non-issue and they should just post it. If they are not subscribed, they should state this in their forum post with a request for it to be posted on the mailing list by someone who is subscribed. -- Ezekielf (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ezekielf: That seems like a fair middle ground. Adamant1 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. - The new community forum is a much lower barrier than the mailing list --Flo Edelmann (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I belong to the users who a discouraged to participate in the proposal process more by the rule that I need to use the mailing list for announcements. But in favour of a transition period for this proposal to be adopted --Gendy54 (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --GeoMechain (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Tykayn wiki (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. As long as the tagging/mapping discussion doesn't take place on the new forum, but on the mailing list, the proposals should also be announced on the mailing list. --Dafadllyn (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Robert46798 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Rmikke (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Coolawik (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --AgusQui (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cubbe (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)