# Answer to metadecidim proposals

###### tags: `Metadecidim`
----

## ~~Initiatives notifications enhancement~~
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17194

`With Funding`

**Answer:**

Hi @OSP when are you planing to develop this? From product side we think it's a good improvement of initiatives. Just for you to know, Barcelona City Council is preparing a set of improvements related to initiatives.But this improvement is not foreseen.

However, until we achieve the end of the front-end redesign, we won't be accepting new PRs for features, so as not to add any additional overhead that slows down the launching of the 0.28. version.

## ~~Display the image of an initiative rather than its type~~
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/16878

**Answer:**

Hi @lucie_grau this proposal makes sense as it is the consistent behaviour for the homepage content blocks. We will take it into account when we address the homepage blocks of the new redesign. So we will accept it for the new redesign, that will be launched in the version 0.28.

## ~~Send a notification when a post has been published~~
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17195

**Answer:**

Hi @OSP when are you planing to develop this? This proposal is consistent with the behaviour that exists in other components, so from our side it's okey.

However, until we achieve the end of the front-end redesign, we won't be accepting new PRs for features, so as not to add any additional overhead that slows down the launching of the 0.28. version.

## Accountability from the front-office
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17202

**Answer:** ❌

Hi @simonas! For the moment, product is not seeing this proposal so convenient, as we don't see too much support to it. Moreover, our vision is now to avoid adding new features to the existing ones.

We encourage you to develop it as a module and live with it for a while. Then when can evaluate how this had work.

## Allow mapping multiple scopes to resources
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17201

(Dubte: Als plecs tenim pensada la unificació de scopes i arees, i poder definir tipus de scopes. Entenc que això no implica permetre fer servir més d'una etiqueta, no?)

**Answer:**

Hi @ahu! We think this could be a good feature. Barcelona City Council will develop the unification between scopes and areas, so this feature could be a good complement in the direction to improve how participants can filter and tag content in Decidim.

## Añadir datos públicos de contexto a los procesos y debates de la ciudadanía.
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17205

**Answer:**
Needs definition

## Improving open data feature on Decidim
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17207

**Answer:** -

Hi @dynnammo ! I see two different proposals in one here:
The first one, related to the open data file format, I think is a good idea to improve the understanding of the open data file for the general public.

The other one, the proposal to allow admins to embed open data dataframes from a URL is related to the issue of how we can improve the information that participants can acces. I understand that you are suggesting creating something similar to the "Iframe component" available in the Decidim Awesome module? Or maybe I'm not understanding it

## Import projects into a budget from a file
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17209

**Answer:**
(Ja està fet: https://github.com/OpenSourcePolitics/decidim-module-budgets_importer
Si ho revisem i sembla bé, jo l'acceptaria per la 0.28.)

## Add file uploads field to Discussions component
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17211

**Answer:**
This is consitent taking in account that it's possible to do it in other component such as proposals.
`Without funding`
`Good first issue for junior Dev`

## Make the order criteria for comments configurable from the admin
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17212

**Answer:**
I think it is better to define a clear mental model that always works the same way.
`Without funding`

## Send a single notification when both proposals and proposals' answers are uploaded in bulk.
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/16984

I think it's a good idea, I remember when the Barceloan participatory budget proposals were accepted and the wave of notifications received. This could be part of the general review of the notifications that exist in Decidim, proposed by @pops.

## Ability to use reverse geocoding
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17229

**Answer:**
`Without funding`

## Improve location programming API
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17230

**Answer:**
`Without funding`

## Improvement of the Decidim’s metrics consistency throughout the application
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17231

**Answer:**
És la proposta que va fer Platoniq. Pensava que ho teniem als plecs però no.

`Without funding`

## Possibility for survey respondent to get a summary of their answers
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17232

**Answer:**
It coincides with the BCN City Council old proposal

`Without funding`

## Improvements to the participant group feature
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17237

**Answer:**
Serveix per definir l'issue dels plecs de millores dels User groups

`Without funding`

## Private components within public spaces
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17235

**Answer:**
Personally I like the idea. On different occasions, I have come across organisations asking me to be able to have private components. The usual alternative of creating a private child space is sometimes not very usable.

I only have one question: Should we show that a component is enabled to the users that have not access to the private component? Or this might be more confusing?

`Without funding`

## Continuity in components
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17239

**Answer:**
I think we are mixing concepts here. You are actually proposing that participants can create projects in budgets and results in accountability. I think the problem that is pointed out does not exist, maybe it is not well solved, but the traceability is maintained by the related proposals/projects. We can think about how to improve the visualisation of related proposals or their navigation, but I struggle to see the problem identified.

**Answer to the Pops+Anti+Xabier threat:**
In the end, this discussion has focused solely on flexibility after accepting or rejecting a proposal, and the possibilty for an admin to edit a participant proposal. Perhaps we can think of flexibility in the participant's ability to edit a proposal and improve it so that it can be accepted. But I think it is a red line that an admin can edit a participant's content. It would clearly go against the social contract.

`Without funding`

## Edit my private notes (Proposal component)
https://meta.decidim.org/processes/roadmap/f/122/proposals/17240

**Answer:**
Make sense. Could be add to the 0.28 release

`With funding`