Feedback from Meeting Missing Maps CZ & SK

[ghost]

There was a Meeting Missing Maps CZ & SK -- the meeting of core teams that organize mapathons over Czechia and Slovakia -- this weekend [1]. In the end, we discussed the Tasking Manager and related problems. I want to share the results here:

• The validation permissions do not work. I think it was project 6980 or 6981 -- Mapper level required: No, Validator role required: No. However, some validators -- that are not advanced level mappers -- were unable to validate.
• In our community (mapathons repeatedly in 12+ cities), only one person is able to add a validator role. This is unfortunate as it slows down the process of validator training. The proposal is adding a new role that let advanced/authorized user assign validator role to others. These advanced/authorized users shouldn't be project managers and should not be able to edit projects.
• Tasking Manager behaves strangely when there is a big number of users. Strange behavior is, for example, some user starts mapping -> Tasking Manager gets stuck -> Tasking Manager reports task as already locked after while.

[pantierra]

Hi @qeef, many thanks for the feedback! Do you think our new teams functionality (https://github.com/hotosm/tasking-manager/issues/1591) will help to overcome difficulties you lined out? We built it in mind with the challenges you are describing here?

[ghost]

Definitely not the 1st and the 3rd one.

Regarding the 2nd one -- I don't think so. There are two main reasons why:

• It looks like teams are related to organizations. It is not our case as our mapping communities are city-based, not organization-based.
• If there are multiple teams managed by their admins, all these teams must be selected in project as validators. This doesn't scale well, as number of teams may grow.

[pantierra]

Regarding 2) Yes, this is an interesting requirement, but I think and hope we can cover this by assigning such persons of the cities you are saying as admins to a team, but not as manager for the organization. We just have to make sure that the admins of a team will receive approval requests and can confirm or deny them. I will make sure to include this to the respective issue and report back here.

[pantierra]

Regarding 1) I think it is related, because we are changing the way how permissions for validation are given. Instead of the sometimes strange behaving combination of different options, teams are going to be assigned. Not a direct solution, and we have to make sure it works as desired and expressed here by you.

Regarding 3) this is interesting, we are going to roll out some significant infrastructure improvements with TM4, and I hope that these will help to scale up much more quickly our infrastructure whenever a mapathon starts.

[ghost]

Ad 2) I am lost. In #1591 there is nothing like admins of a team nor manager for the organization. Only General admins or admins of the associated organization. So I don't see the role of validator trainers in #1591 and asking, therefore.

Also, from #1591 it looks like all the teams are organization-dependent.

In particular, let's have this imaginary example: There is a group of 10 volunteers. Nobody is connected to any of the organizations -- they just map and know it makes sense. Today is their day as they are attending the validation training. The leader of the group is an experienced validator (not connected to any of the organizations, he was a newbie mapping volunteer two years ago) and he will show the rest of volunteers how to validate during an ongoing mapathon.

Even the example is imaginary, it is close to reality. Could you, please, describe the proposed workflow?

[pantierra]

Yes, wording is an issue, some clarification:

• We have general admins or admins on the highest level and can do everything everywhere.
• We have project managers or organizational admins or just managers, on the second level. They can create projects, campaigns and teams within an organization they are assigned to. An organization can also be My local group of volunteers or simple instances of the Tasking Manager will only have one organization.
• We have team admins (please see in the click dummy) who can add and remove people from a team.

In order to go into your example, I need first to clarify: Who in your scenario approves the people to become a validator? On the current HOT Tasking Manager I think it is handled through an application to our team (organization=HOT).

[ghost]

In the example, the experienced validator leading the validation training should be able to approve the others as validators. With as little bureaucracy as possible.

[pantierra]

Then, in the current HOT Tasking Manager, the validator would need to have admin rights. With TM4 it is enough to convince one organization that s/he can manage validators, then the person will become a team admin for the team like "volunteer validators" under this organization and can approve people joining it.

[ghost]

One statement and one question:

• Any mapper has to be part of some organization. That's not true and can make one feel uncomfortable.
• These volunteer validators will be able to validate any project? Or just projects where are assigned directly?

[pantierra]

Any mapper has to be part of some organization. That's not true and can make one feel uncomfortable.

Not at all. Mappers are mappers, and they are not related to any organization directly. They can join teams of different organizations, but most mapping doesn't need anybody to be part of a team anyways.

These volunteer validators will be able to validate any project? Or just projects where are assigned directly?

Only the projects they are assigned to. And this is good, I think, we shall not give them wider permission. Many organizations have their own way to onboard validators and might have much stricter criteria.

Please understand organizations as a way these entities are called. Mostly reflect to existing organizations. There is nothing wrong to create an organization that expresses people not associated to any fixed organization.

[ghost]

Any mapper has to be part of some organization. That's not true and can make one feel uncomfortable.

Not at all. Mappers are mappers, and they are not related to any organization directly. The can join teams of different organizations and most mapping doesn't need anybody to be part of a team anyways.

My bad. I said mapper but meant validator. A validator must be a member of some team. Teams are under an organization.

These volunteer validators will be able to validate any project? Or just projects where are assigned directly?

Only the projects they are assigned to. And this is good, I think, we can give them wider permission. Many organizations have their own way to onboard validators and might have much stricter criteria.

It sounds like organizations are not interested in the help of teams of other organizations.

Let's broaden the example to multiple cities. There are multiple mapathons with validation training now. This extended example can be solved by (1) One team and multiple team admins for all the cities. This is messy. (2) Multiple teams per city with team admin (+ maybe 1-2 backup admins). In any project, every team must be specified again and again.

Please understand organizations as a way these entities are called. Mostly reflect to existing organizations. There is nothing wrong to create an organization that expresses people not associated to any fixed organization.

This organization that is not an organization, in fact, will cover teams contributing to the projects of other organizations, right? I feel like it makes no sense.

If I understand the process of Tasking Manager correctly, there are organizations publishing and managing projects and teams that map and validate these projects. There is no need for bounding organizations with teams. It may happen that in some particular projects the exact team is desired, but not by default.

I am sorry for shifting from community feedback to a database architecture design. The goal is to let experienced volunteering validators approve the others as validators too (community feedback). And in my opinion, the solution proposed will not scale well.

[pantierra]

It sounds like organizations are not interested in the help of teams of other organizations.

Yes they are. But people want to be able to control a bit. With the new structure we can finally do things like you describe in your scenarios, before it is impossible to do on the TM right now.

[pantierra]

Closing because of inactivity. Thanks for the feedback!