<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/03/2015 12:31 PM, David Bannon
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1425346277.14327.29.camel@davos-LT"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 17:07 -0800, Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The current wiki vote guidelines read:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Bryce, I see what you want to achieve but not sure if I agree on the
details.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Consider instead this wording:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> There is no firm definition of 'enough' votes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Too subjective ! (Finally, I got to say that on this list!)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> ..... A strong proposal will have:
8 or more unanimous approval votes.
16 or more votes, with a supermajority (75%) positive
or abstaining.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
OK, but puzzled about 'abstaining' votes. If someone voted, its almost
always yes or no. Lets not count all possible voters please !</pre>
</blockquote>
<big><br>
I'd take that as the votes cast not the number of tagging group
members. </big><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1425346277.14327.29.camel@davos-LT"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> A history of tagging consistent with the proposal,
from five or more active mappers. This mapping often
starts during the RFC phase, and can be very helpful
in refining the proposed tagging.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Going to be very difficult to document, to establish the facts. Great
idea to encourage but to make a proposal dependant on it.....</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<big>There are a number of proposals in the draft stage that people
are using .. some have been in draft for years. </big><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1425346277.14327.29.camel@davos-LT"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
With OSM's open tagging policy you need not wait for the wiki
to start tagging. The wiki is not a collection of 'rules',
and mappers and rendering services are free to ignore your
proposal
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Indeed, but more emphasis is needed on the impact of others ignoring
your impromptu tags. Truth is, tagging effort is wasted if it is
ignored.
As I have said before, you can make up new words when speaking to
someone, but unless you agree on their meaning, you won't be understood.
David
</pre>
</blockquote>
<big>As I see it there are 3 'vote thresholds' ;<br>
<br>
The tagging group ... to get 'approved' status.<br>
<br>
The mappers themselves - find it usefull and features that match
the tag.<br>
<br>
The renderers who find a tag frequently used or significant and
judge the feature worth placing on 'their' maps. <br>
<br>
----------------------------<br>
Making the tagging groups 'approval' more onerous will simply
drive people to add the tag (and hopefully documentation) without
going to the tagging group at all. Thus possibly leading to more
'bad' tags? I'd rather try to attract the new tags before they get
used? <br>
<br>
The rejection of tags by the tagging group may reflect on the
discussions made during the comments period - some ignored, some
not persuasive enough, and some having no participation at all in
the discussion thus unable to persuade or be persuaded! The
'failure' of a vote not only reflects poorly on the proposal but
the authors, both the proposer and the tagging group as a whole. A
'bad' tag may be changed to a better description during
discussions, if the persuasion is good enough, or abandoned for a
better tag again if the persuasion is good enough. <br>
<br>
The 'failure' of a proposal to gain the required number of votes
(either for or against) to me reflects extremely badly on the
tagging group.... thus my thoughts on an expiry time for the
required number of votes .. decreasing it to 0 at say 6
weeks...!!!! Certainly any proposal that has been in voting stage
for over a year deserves some form of termination. <br>
<br>
Experience? <br>
<font face="georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book
antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond,
sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic
sans ms, times, times new roman, serif"><i>No physician is
really good before he has killed one or two patients.</i>
~Hindu Proverb</font><br>
</big><br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>