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

Don't move too fast, please

There is no urgency. Please slow down. I would like to see how the new forum develops first. So piloting, I'm all for it. Requiring, not so much, I don't see the need.

Let's first just test the process, as a second option. Then see how it works out. Do more people engage? Is the email notification and reply system good enough for non-forum-fans? Then all can make up their minds. Then maybe we could say, let's make this new forum the main channel for RFC (Request For Comment) and CFV (Call For Votes, in the same vernacular as RFC).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pelderson (talk • contribs)

4 👍 ^{bkil 2022-09-24 Ezekielf 2022-09-24 Nakaner 2022-10-04 Nadjita 2022-10-09}

Yes, please take it slow. I am fully in favor of this proposal, but moving too quickly will surely turn people against the idea. I suggest the initial proposal be changed to: Require proposal announcements to be made on the new forum as well as the mailing list. Let the community get used to announcing in both places for a while and encourage discussion on the forum as much as possible. Then if the RFC discussions are working well on the forum, make a second proposal to remove the requirement to announce on the tagging list. -- Ezekielf (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Pelderson: and @Ezekielf: for your concerns. I think that there is a misunderstanding. I don't change where discussions happen. The current proposal process recommends discussion on the wiki's talk page, I don't change that (see announcement templates). In the current proposal process, discussions on the mailing list and forum are optional though they do happen most of the time. If this proposal is accepted, you are still free to discuss it on the mailing list. What I want to change is that the proposal author is required to announce the RFC or vote on the new forum instead of the mailing list. I updated the proposal to clarify this. The requested process change is smaller then you think it is I think --Cartographer10 (talk)

since the goal is that the author of a proposal is not even present on the list to post his announcement (that's how little he wants to reach a maximum of people), it's quite hypocritical to say "but you have the right to discuss on the liste.... with the one who is not there". those who are present to discuss on the list have no worries about posting a message among the many necessary for a quality proposal and therefore it will not change anything for them, the only people are those who would have to gain from opening their audience and the proposal goes precisely in the other direction Marc marc (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Logging into the wiki with OSM accounts

That is something that is very much planned and being worked on, see Top Ten Tasks#OAuth login to wiki. So I don't think that the rationale of the proposal should focus so much on the account barrier since it can be addressed without migrating the process to the new forum. --Push-f (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

1 👍 ^{bkil 2022-09-24}

For this proposal the wiki login doesn't matter. It is mainly about the requirement to make RFC and vote announcements on the tagging mailing list. That should be moved to the forum. As said, people can still use the talk page of wiki for discussion as well as other like the forum topic of the tagging mailing list. This proposal doesn't force people to discuss on a certain platform. My experience with proposals is that discussions tend to happen on multiple platforms--Cartographer10 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet, the Rationale section in its current version lists alleged login barriers as a reason for this proposal. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martianfreeloader: There is a barrier compared to the mailing list, which is what I explain in the rationale. Proposal announcements are made on the tagging mailing list, not wiki. That is why the wiki login is irrelevant for this proposal. --Cartographer10 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Structure of discussions

I find the linear nature of Discourse discussions to be quite unsuited for larger discussions. Large discussions are bound to branch into many smaller discussions. While you say that "moderators can branch off topics when they become off-topic" that is obviously much less flexible than mailing lists and wiki talk pages where you can simply branch off yourself without requiring moderator action.

Especially when it comes to discussing proposals, I really like wiki talk pages because you can structure the discussion into multiple sections, which makes the whole discussion very organized and thereby accessible to people who join in later. On Discourse on the other hand you just get a miles-long thread that is just dreadful to read afterwards.

--Push-f (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

1 👍 ^{bkil 2022-09-24}

And this proposal doesn't force discussion on the forum. As said, the talk page will remain the first the place discussion. That is also the case with the mailing list. The standard template asks for discussion on the talk page. I don't change thast --Cartographer10 (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Why not announce on mailing list AND forum?

I like the idea of announcing it on the new forum. Why do you want to stop announcing it on the mailing list? Nielkrokodil (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Nielkrokodil: I want to stop requiring users to announce it on the mailing list. They can still optionally announce it there. As explained in the proposal, the mailing list creates a significant barrier for many mappers to use the mailing list ( see proposal for reasons). This makes them not participate in these discussion or even beginning a proposal process them self. --Cartographer10 (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please keep it mandatory for the mailing list. Forum: optional or mandatory would be both fine for me. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martianfreeloader: Can you please explain why you would like to keep announcements to be made on the tagging mailing list to? --Cartographer10 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Because that's where some people (including myself) will read it. I think it's upon you to explain why this shouldn't be done anymore. :-) --Martianfreeloader (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martianfreeloader: I did as reply to Nielkrokodil and I wrote the entire proposal explaining why I think we should move. You agree with Nielkrokodil so please explain why you think it should stay on the mailing list--Cartographer10 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Because that's where some people (including myself) will read it. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martianfreeloader:I understand that still some people prefer the mailing. However, these are community proposals. The announcements should therefor be made on a channel (the new forum), that is easily accessible by most members of the community. The mailing list does not meet this requirement in my opinion. You have to separately subscribe to it, you can't unsubscribe to posts on the mailing list so you will receive message you are not interested in (spam). I don't say Discourse is the holy grail that solves everything. Every platform has it pros and cons but discourse will serve well as a community platform so it makes sense to move the announcements to there only. YOu are still free to post the proposal on the mailing list, it is just not required anymore--Cartographer10 (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cartographer10: "The announcements should (...) be made on a channel (...) that is easily accessible by most members of the community" -- I would go as far as saying "all members" instead! The opinion (that you seem to share) that Discourse is such an "easily accessible channel" is a falacy! Please measure how long it takes for any Discourse page to load, and how much is downloaded through the internet. Then please also measure the performance (e.g. time, CPU, memory, ...) of such a page compared to any mailing list page or email in an email client. Alternatively, take a look at "OSM related group communication channels and platforms" by Imagico. Not everyone has a good internet connection and/or computer/phone, you're excluding more people than including by forcing Discourse down on people. --O-andras (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried Discourse's mailing list mode already? --- Kovposch (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I use it for the Elixir, NixOS and IPFS Discourse instances. Look for "old dogs" in my vote on this proposal. --O-andras (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Current discussion tags should be changed

The tag wiki-proposal should not be used. Instead proposal, rfc should be used RFC announcements and proposal, voting should be used for voting announcements. I'm open for discussion but I feel like this needs to be delt with soon to avoid duplicate discussion tagging schemes by people assuming they should use wiki-proposal. --Mxdanger (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mxdanger: Good point. wiki-proposal was just my first suggestion. It is specific enough to not be used in other forum community which is likely the case with proposal and rfc. This can result in lots of spam for people who want to follow the tag for wiki proposal. They should not be bothered with proposals in local, non-english communities. --Cartographer10 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Cartographer10: Yes, you make a point. Using a highly specific tag could be useful, but I just feel like proposal should be a general all-encompassing tag, which can be narrowed down with the tags rfc, voting (optionally tagged with tagging if it's a tagging proposal or wiki if the proposal is for the wiki), automated-edits, or imports. What method should we use?

On the Proposal process page, I added with the following since that's what people seem to have already been using.

1. Category: "General talk".
2. Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - <PROPOSAL NAME>
3. Set relevant tags as needed
   • Required: proposal, rfc
   • Recommended: tagging, wiki

How should the tagging be changed? --18:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mxdanger: I noticed the multiple tags to. My reason for wiki-proposal is that people can follow a single tag for wiki proposals. I can of course edit the proposal so that people also add the tags rfc, proposal and voting. I think however that a tag like wiki-proposal is still nice so that people can follow 1 tag for wiki proposals. --Cartographer10 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for participation barrier?

Just wondering: Do you have evidence these claims?

• "It is known that there are quite some mappers who really dislike the mailing list."
• "(T)he mailing list creates a significant barrier for many mappers to use the mailing list."
• "This makes them not participate in these discussion or even beginning a proposal process them self."

This is not meant to be provocative; I'm genuinely curious. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martianfreeloader: Point 1 and 3) No, I have no written evidence. This is a conclusion I made from other conversations. Especially on the OSM world Discord server, I often see people complain about the mailing list. Somebody even stated they didn't continue with a proposal because of the mailing list requirement.

point 2) As addition to the answer above, the mailing lists requires you to sign-up. This creates a barrier. --Cartographer10 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

totally anecdotal, but I was going to do a proposal for a tag awhile back but decided not to because I didn't want to deal with the mailing list. I think it's one of those things where either people like and understand how to use it, or they don't. Unfortunately I'm later category. As a side point, no insult to people who use the mailing lists either, but it kind of a communication system that favors certain types of users who are extremely tech literate and have the time to deal with it. If OSM is ever going to "modernize" and used more widely it really needs to stop making such things mandatory. I'm sure most users who joined within the last five years or so aren't able or don't want to use it anymore then I do. I think that's born out in the fact that 99% of the people who participate in the mailing lists are part of the same group of long-term, affluent users that have always participated in them. I read through them a lot and rarely (if ever) see any new participants. I could count the "regulars" on one hand in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m currently working on improving rollercoaster rendering. As a result, improved tagging is necessary to avoid data loss. So, I created a few draft wiki pages that I wanted to turn into a proposal. Then I found out that I had to use the mail list for a proposal to take place and decided that the effort of setting up and using a mail list wasn’t worth it (still don’t really know what a mail list means though), as I can just start using the new tags anyway. But for the future I would like to be more active in proposals for more impactful tag changes and I do think the mail list is a barrier for the new generation of OSM mappers.--Tjuro (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

really ? you dislike a thing you haven't tried ? yet almost everyone has sent an email on the internet, not everyone is able to edit a wiki, so your argument seems very strange to me to the point that I don't believe there is a higher barrier to sending than a barrier to editing a wiki Marc marc (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously there's more to having discussions on the mailing list then just sending an email. Although using email has never been that intuitive for most people even that was all it entitled. That's one of the reasons it never really caught on except in niche use cases like mailing-lists frequented by people who are already extremely tech literate and have a history of using text based interfaces like Unix terminals. Email was popular say between 1990 and 1995, but that was about it. Pretty much everyone else has moved on from it at this point though. Same goes for wikis. Which, unlike email, was never really a widely used thing to begin with. Both have a high barrier to entry for most people then say a forum though.

Personally, I'd love to see OSM mature as a platform and stop being stuck in the late 1990s/early 2000s at some point. Most of the time decisions seem to be made based purely on nostalgic ideas about how the internet should be. Instead of what it actually is, I.E. not a place where we are exchanging messages through *Nix terminals on our Dec VT100's through USENET or whatever. That seems to be the mentality of people on here though. -Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: If you want OSM to "mature" in this regard, it would help if you stopped sabotaging initiatives like this one by turning mailing list users against it. There are ways in which mailing lists are superior to technology introduced later. (Because the developers of the latter had other priorities and other target audiences, they didn't even really attempt to beat mailing lists in the areas they excel in.) Understanding and admitting this, and looking for ways to preserve these benefits on the way forward, would go a long way to bring mailing list users to your side. Your current attitude makes me want to side against you in this discussion and I've spent much of my spare time this year getting community.osm.org off the ground. --Tordanik 07:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tordanik: I didn't propose this and had nothing to do with it's drafting. If mailing list users, including you, can't handle the comments of a single random user who essentially has nothing to do with the proposal then they (and you) where going to be against the proposal regardless of what I had to say. Maybe point the finger where it belongs, on yourself and other mailing list users who would apparently rather vote against a proposal out of spite for some random person's opinions then admit that how you choose to communicate is outdated and turns new users off of creating proposals.

Personally, I just find it hilarious how much you people love to immediately obfuscate and find a scape goat whenever someone makes the slightest criticism of the status quo. It's such a seriously played, boorish way to act at this point. The wider OSM community shouldn't have to kiss your ring or otherwise "win" you people over to improve how things are done on the platform. The fact that you act like it does really just proves my point. As a side to that, I'm aware that there are benefits to the mailing list, but I choose to weigh those benefits against the amount of potential people that aren't participating in the proposal process because it doesn't work for them. You don't care about that, and that's fine. There is no "correct" or "best" way to do this. Don't treat me like I just don't understand how things work though. The paternalism is rather patronizing. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tordanik1: I would advise against engaging in 'discussions' with Adamant1. SimonPoole (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@SimonPoole: I really don't appreciate the interference. Why not let us have a discussion about it if we want to instead of trying to shut down the conversation? Outside of Tardnik making this personal, I'm actually pretty interested in what he has to say about it since he's spent so much time getting community.osm.org off the ground. He should be more then able to provide a reasonable response to anything I or anyone else who thinks proposals should be announced on the forums has said about it, at least beyond the tone policing or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Will further fragmentation increase participation?

I see a risk that further fragmentation of communication may have an effect that's opposite to the desired outcome. How can we be confident that forcing people to subscribe to yet another communication channel (besides wiki & mailing lists) will increase participation? --Martianfreeloader (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Martianfreeloader: It is indeed a valid concern. However, this proposal should make it easier for many mappers. The is a central place many already use for discussion. It makes sense to centralize things. Note that I only want to change the place where you announce proposals. The wiki's talk page is and will remain the recommended place for discussion until somebody makes a proposal for that. I don't change that. The proposal discussion on the mailing list is also optional at the moment. Proposal discussions happen everywhere is my experience and it always functioned --Cartographer10 (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that intention in long run is to get rid of tagging mailing list and migrate all activity to Discourse forums Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Why don't we just automate this?

I am thinking of a website where you paste the URL of your proposal and it automatically:

1. announces your proposal on the tagging@openstreetmap.org mailing list
2. announces your proposal on the community forum
3. announces your proposal on Mastodon
4. announces your proposal on Twitter
5. generates an RSS feed of proposal announcements

Then anybody can just follow proposal announcements however they see fit. (To prevent the website from being abused you'd probably have to log in with your OSM account via OAuth.) All of these services have well-documented APIs, implementing something like this would probably only take me a couple of hours.

--Push-f (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there is kind an expection that you participate in any subsequent discussions and/or answer questions people might have about the proposal. Which obviously isn't going to happen if it's automated and the person doing the proposal isn't actually otherwise involved in the mailing list. I've actually seen people just announce a proposal and then dodge out. Their message was ignored and no one participated in the RfC or voted on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The announcements could easily clarify that the discussion should take place on the wiki talk page. I don't find your anecdotal arguments convincing. I have announced several proposals on the mailing list and I am much more responsive on wiki talk pages than on the ML ... I have not found that to be an issue at all. If this proposal would be accepted, most people would probably only announce on the forum because announcing elsewhere is additional work. Announcing it on several platforms at once would certainly lead to more participation than announcing it just on the forum. --Push-f (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What would be the point in even having the announcement at that point then except as a way to appease the few people left who still use the mailing list and think it should be the de-facto communication platform no how irrelevant it is? There's a point where it's on them for preferring a more archaic communication platform then everyone else. As a side to that, it's also kind of weird that you say my anecdotal arguments aren't convincing, but then follow it up with some random experience you had.

Either way, at the end of the day we can throw out our personal experiences and what I said is still a fact. There's an expectation that people participate in the discussion about a proposal when they announce it on the mailing list. Period. No one is going to do that if they do the notification by filling out some random, boiler plate, off mailing list form. Otherwise they would just use the mailing list from the start. Say they don't participate in the subsequent discussion though. What's more likely, that people who's messages are ignored will just sod off or participate in the RfC/voting later? My guess is that they will sod off. Of course you can dismiss that by saying it's an "anecdotal argument" or whatever, but literally everything here is. Including what you've said. That's perfectly fine BTW. There isn't, and never will be, hard data about any of this or what the "best" way to notify people of something is. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I find your lack of sympathy for people who prefer the mailing list to be quite disturbing. I believe that we are one community with one goal (to improve OpenStreetMap) ... which communication platform you prefer should not matter ... at all. I still disagree with your "fact", and there certainly are non-anecdotal arguments here, you must have read over them, let me repeat one: Announcing something on more platforms, reaches more people. --Push-f (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I must agree, your language is quite vivacious. It makes it difficult to respond to your (objective) arguments because they are hard to make out and distil from the surrounding provocations. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol OK. Whatever you both say. I don't really care about people on the mailing list one or another, but internet forums have been around for like 30 years now and there doesn't seem to be any other reason not to use the forums except for the feelings of mailing list users. So that's really the only thing worth discussing. There's literally nothing else that can be discussed about this because at the end of the day how the mailing list users feel about this is really the thing that will determine if it happens or not. Does that mean I lack sympathy for people who prefer the mailing list though? No. I just don't think they should be the sole arbitrators of how things are done. That's it. Really to me what makes this difficult to respond to is the lack of actual evidence that requiring proposal announcements to be made on the forums will do any actual harm. In the meantime there's plenty of examples out there where people show an utter lack of sympathy for users who can't (or choose not to) use the mailing list. Really, this whole discussion is an exercise in not caring about their opinions or experiences. Does anyone care? No. So I guess it is what it is. But hey, be my guest and be the change you want to see in the world next time by not knee jerk dismissing other people's experiences. Then maybe I'll be a little more sympathetic about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that mailing list users are the sole arbitrator, I don't know where you get the idea from. I do have full sympathy for people who don't use the mailing list, and I think it would be good to announce the proposals on the forum as well (not instead). --Push-f (talk) 08:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Push-f: Sure, technically they aren't. But why is the current status quo that they are the the first/main people who should be alerted about a new proposal then? I don't see how you can say they supposedly aren't the main/sole arbitrators, while at the same time no proposal ever would get off the ground or be accepted by the community at large if the mailing list isn't notified about it ahead of time. I've seen more then one proposal shot down on it's face myself just because the creator didn't go through the process of alerting the mailing list about it before they put it to a vote or whatever. Otherwise, I'd be interested to see this mythological proposal that no one from the mailing list was told about, participating in, but was still ultimately approved. Be my guest and provide an example if you have one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Push-f: That is an interesting idea. I would personally not post it on Mastodon or Twitter but that aside. I also posted the few proposals I did only multiple platforms like the ML, the forum and Discord. A proposal really benefits from having a decent discussion and it is true to some people are only active on certain platforms. By posting it on multiple platforms, you get many people their opinion. I have 3 remarks for discussion:

- How does the proposal author receive feedback if he/she doesn't actively engage in the discussion. I personally really dislike the ML as communication platform so I would only post it there and then unsubscribe (or even not subscribe at all and use your tool).

- Can you place this tool on an osm website or on wiki so that it looks official?

- What about abuse? You can indeed place it behind a login but how do you make sure it is only used for wiki proposals? --Cartographer10 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The primary means of giving feedback would be the proposal's talk page.

The tool could be hosted on an openstreetmap.org subdomain and OSM infrastructure if there's community support for it and the relevant working groups consider it a good idea. But I think that this would be the last step ... the tool would need to be built beforehand. So it would probably initially run on an unofficial subdomain / server.

Restricting it to OSM proposals is very easy: the tool would simply only accept URLs that point to this wiki ... URLs pointing elsewhere would be rejected with an error message. MediaWiki also has an API so there could be additional sanity checks, like does the page contain a {{Proposal page}}? --Push-f (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There is already Category:Proposals_by_status grouped that can be checked and tracked. --- Kovposch (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I gave it some thought but I am not really convinced that just posting and not participating is a thing we should do. I don't think it will lead to thriving discussions if the author doesn't participate. I also do value free choice but not if it leads to an undesired situation like it would here. I think that via rss and subscribing to a tag, everybody can just passively follow it on the new forum. The new forum is intended to be the new, central community place which should be the primary place for posting. The author is free to also post it on other channels --Cartographer10 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea. It seems like a solution that both camps can live with (except for some hardliners maybe). --Martianfreeloader (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

One thing that I think is being missed here is that most or all of the people who use the mailing list also already subscribe to and participate in other communications platforms. Like you can look at most of the top posters on the mailing list and they are moderators of or participate in the forums. That's one of the reasons I'm un-sympathetic about this to the degree that I am. You have people above this discussion saying to slow down things until mailing list users get use to the forums, they largely already are use to them. In the meantime the proposals are currently announced on the mailing list is purely because that's how people on the mailing list want them to be announced, because they like to act like gate keepers or whatever. None of them are going to miss an announcement if it's made somewhere else though.

Personally I see no reason to be sympathetic about something that is being done for purely performative reasons. If people on the mailing would legitimately only use that platform and would therefore miss announcements if they were being made on the forums then fine. There's zero evidence that has any chance of happening though. At least not with the core group of mailing list users who we are supposedly getting used to the forums before they can be used for anything actually useful. But either way if it's the same users on the forums and mailing list then for all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter what platform the notification is being made on. That's also why I think the notification thing is a none starter, because your just informing the same group of users multiple times about something they already know is happening from the 5 other discussion platforms they regularly participate in. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

You can use the mailing list passively (e.g. just to get notified about new proposals) without actively participating in the mailing list. I am afraid nobody knows how many people actively read a mailing list because of course being subscribed does not imply that you read the mail. But you don't even know how many people are subscribed, do you? So please stop making such unsubstantiated claims about "most or all of the people". Besides I just did some spot checks and several people who have authored proposals in the last year do not have an account on the forum. --Push-f (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

No really? That is exactly why I said "most or all of the people who use the mailing list. It should be obvious that doesn't include passive, rando readers who aren't subscribed and don't actively participate in mailing list discussions. The fact remains that most of the people who use the mailing list (at least beyond some rando Andy who read a post once or whatever) are already active on the forums. Cool that a few people who created a proposal in the last year aren't subscribed to the forums. That wasn't my argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Push-f:: There could be value in that tool no matter whether the proposal process requires submission to the community forum or to the ML. Either way, the tool would make sure that the announcement is sent to the required channel (among others) with the specified format. --Tordanik 15:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

imho the issue isn't "why" but "who 'll code that ?" and not as an additional external tool(site but as a wiki module or bot: you inform a status change (from RFC), the announcement is made. Marc marc (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)